Document of
The World Bank
Report No: 31307 - NA
PROJECT BRIEF
ON A
PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF US 4.9 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA
FOR A
NAMIB COAST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT
{02/09/05}
CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective February 2005)
Currency Unit = Namibia Dollar
1NAD = US$ 0.161
US$1 = NAD 6.19
FISCAL YEAR
April 1 – March 31
AFR
ASPEN
BCC
BCLME
BENEFIT
BP
BTOR
CAS
CBD
CBNRM
CBO
CBT
CCD
CEM
CEO
CEPF
CFA
COP
CZM
DANCED
DAP
DDC
DEA
DIP
DLIST
DO
DPWM
DRFN
EA
EC
EEZ
EIF
ELAK
EMB
EMP
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
Africa Region
Africa Safeguard Policies Enhancement
Benguela Current Commission
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem
Benguela Environment Fisheries Interaction and Training Programme
Bank Procedure
Back to Office Report
Country Assistance Strategy
Convention on Biological Diversity
Community Based Natural Resource Management
Community Based Organization
Community Based Tourism
Convention to Combat Desertification
Country Economic Memorandum
Chief Executive Officer
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
Counterpart Fund Account
Conference of the Parties
Coastal Zone Management
Danish Agency for Cooperation and Development
Decentralization Action Plan
Directorate of Decentralization Coordination
Directorate of Environmental Affairs
Decentralization Implementation Plan
Distance Learning Information Sharing Tool
Development Objective
Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management
Desert Research Foundation in Namibia
Environmental Assessment
European Commission
Exclusive Economic Zone
Environmental Investment Fund
Environmental Learning and Action in the Kuiseb
Environmental Management Bill
Environmental Management Plan
EMS
EOP
ESW
EU
FCCC
FP
FY
GDP
GEF
GIS
GRN
GTRC
GTZ
HDI
HWM
IBRD
ICB
ICEMA
ICR
ICZM
ICZMC
IDA
IEC
IEM
IMCAM
IP
IT
IUCN
LA
LD
LM
M&E
MAWRD
MDG
MENA
MET
MFMR
MLRR
MME
MoU
MPA
MRLGH
MSP
MTR
MWTC
NACOBTA
Environmental Management System
End of Project
Economic and Strategic Work
European Union
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Focal Point
Fiscal Year
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information Systems
Government of the Republic of Namibia
Gobabeb Training and Research Centre
German Technical Cooperation
Human Development Index
High Water Mark
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development
International Competitive Bidding
Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management Project
Implementation Completion Report
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee
International Development Agency
Information, Education, Communication
Integrated Ecosystem Management
Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management
Implementation Progress
Information Technology
International Union for the Conservation of Nature
Local Authority
Land Degradation
Line Ministry
Monitoring and Evaluation
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
Millennium Development Goal
Middle East and North Africa
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Ministry of Mines and Energy
Memorandum of Understanding
Marine Protected Area
Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing
Medium-Size Project
Mid-Term Review
Ministry of Water, Transport and Communication
Namibian Community Based Tourism Association
NACOMA
NACOWP
NAD
NaLTER
NAMETT
NAPCOD
NatMIRC
NBRI
NBSAP
NCSA
NDP
NEPAD
NGO
NMN
NPA
NPC
NRM
OP
ORMIMC
PA
PA
PAD
PCD
PDF
PDO
PESILUP
PGO
PHRD
PIC
PIM
PMU
PPP
PPP
PTO
RC
RDCC
RDP
REO
RVP
SA
SADC
SBD
SC
SG
SKEP
Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Namibia Coastal Management White Paper
Namibia Dollar
Namibian Long Term Ecological Research
Namibian Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
National Program to Combat Desertification
National Marine Information and Research Centre
National Botanical Research Institute
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
National Capacity Self Assessment
National Development Plan
New Partnership for Africa’s Development
Non-Governmental Organization
National Museum of Namibia
Strengthening the System of National Protected Areas Project
National Planning Commission
Natural Resource Management
Operational Program
Orange River Mouth Interim Management Committee
Protected Area
Project Account
Project Appraisal Document
Project Concept Document
Project Development Fund
Project Development Objective
Promoting Environmental Sustainability Through Improved Land Use Planning
Project
Project Global Objective
Japan Policy and Human Resources Development Fund
Public Information Center
Project Implementation Manual
Project Management Unit
Project Participation Plan
Public-Private Partnership
Permission to Occupy
Regional Council
Regional Development Coordination Committee
Regional Development Plan
Regional Environmental Office
Regional Vice President
Special Account
Southern Africa Development Community
Standard Bidding Document
Steering Committee
Scientific Group
Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan
SoE
SSA
STAP
SWAPO
TA
TFCA
TOR
UNAM
UNDP
USAID
WA
WB
WBI
WEHAB
WHS
WSSD
WWF
Statement of Expenditures
Sub-Saharan Africa
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
South West Africa People’s Organization
Technical Assistance
Transfrontier Conservation Area
Terms of Reference
University of Namibia
United Nations Development Programme
United States Agency for International Development
Withdrawal Application
World Bank
World Bank Institute
Water and Sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture and Biodiversity
World Heritage Site
World Summit on Sustainable Development
World Wildlife Fund
Vice President:
Country Director:
Sector Manager:
Task Team Leader:
Gobind T. Nankani
Ritva S. Reinikka
Richard G. Scobey
Christophe Crepin
NAMIBIA
Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
CONTENTS
Page
A.
STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ................................................................. 8
1.
Country and sector issues.................................................................................................... 8
2.
Rationale for Bank involvement ....................................................................................... 13
3.
Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes.................................................. 14
B.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 16
1.
Financial modality ............................................................................................................ 17
2.
Project development (and global) objective ..................................................................... 17
3.
Project components ........................................................................................................... 17
4.
Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design ......................................................... 24
5.
Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ............................................................ 27
C.
IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................................................................ 28
1.
Partnership arrangements .................................................................................................. 28
2.
Institutional and implementation arrangements ................................................................ 28
3.
Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results ................................................................ 30
4.
Sustainability and replicability ......................................................................................... 31
5.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects ............................................................... 34
6.
Grant conditions and covenants ........................................................................................ 36
D.
APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 36
1.
Economic and financial analyses ...................................................................................... 36
2.
Technical ........................................................................................................................... 37
3.
Fiduciary ........................................................................................................................... 38
4.
Social................................................................................................................................. 38
5.
Environment ...................................................................................................................... 39
6.
Safeguard policies ............................................................................................................. 40
7.
Policy exceptions and readiness........................................................................................ 40
Annex 1: Country and Sector Background .............................................................................. 41
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies ................. 50
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 58
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description ...................................................................................... 72
Annex 5: Project Costs ............................................................................................................... 86
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 87
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 95
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................... 96
Annex 9: Economic Analysis of Natural Resources of the Namib Coast ............................... 99
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues .......................................................................................... 104
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ................................................................... 107
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File ............................................................................... 109
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits ............................................................................ 111
Annex 14: Country at a Glance ............................................................................................... 112
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis ..................................................................................... 114
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review .............................................................................................. 129
Annex 17: MAPS ....................................................................................................................... 141
Annex 18: Biodiversity Assets, Threats and Root Causes for Biodiversity Loss and
Proposed Interventions ............................................................................................................. 142
Annex 19: Decentralization in Namibia: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use on the Coast ................................................................................................... 163
Annex 20: Project Participation Plan ..................................................................................... 169
A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE
1. Country and sector issues
Namibia’s coastal zone
1.
The hyper-arid Namibian coastal ecosystem, which stretches from the Kunene River on
the northern border to the Orange River on the southern border, is home to a significant and
unique array of biological and ecological diversity, including uniquely adapted plants and
animals, rich estuarine fauna and a high diversity of migratory wading and seabirds. The Namib
Desert runs along the entire 1,500 km of the coast, extending beyond the Orange River into the
northwestern corner of South Africa – an area known as the Richtersveld – and beyond the
Kunene River into the southwestern corner of Angola. Although much of the coast consists of
sandy beaches with isolated outcrops, there are also significant lagoons, estuaries and riverbeds.
Because the region, which is isolated between the ocean and the escarpment, is a constant island
of aridity surrounded by a sea of climatic change, it has remained a relatively stable center for
the evolution of numerous desert species. The Succulent Karoo biome of the southern Namib
Desert has more diversity than any other desert in the world. (Exceptional features of the
Namibian coast at the ecosystem level are discussed further in Annex 18.)
2.
These rich coastal ecosystems are extremely fragile and can easily be disturbed by human
activities. The coastal region has been relatively inaccessible to date, and there have been few
opportunities for use of coastal land and resources by residents of coastal regions. As a result,
Namibia has an exceptionally low, and geographically very concentrated, coastal population
compared to other countries. However, increasing human pressures over the past several years
highlight the urgent need for sound coastal planning and management to ensure sustainable and
optimal use of coastal areas and their resources in the future.
3.
The main sources for economic development in Namibia, in particular within the four
coastal regions (Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene), are all resource-based, including a rapidly
growing nature-based tourism industry1, an overall expanding extractive industry (oil and gas
exploration and off-shore mining of minerals, although diamond mining and processing is mostly
downscaling), and a strong commercial fishing industry with growing aquaculture. Farming or
other agricultural activity is almost precluded as a livelihood option, due to the hyper-arid
climate of the coastal desert. Growing economic development and human activities along the
coast may lead to unprecedented migration to the region, bringing with it uncontrolled urban
development that can result in overuse and pollution of freshwater resources, an increase in
industrial coastal and marine pollution, degradation of water regimes for coastal wetlands, and
other land and water degradation.2 (see Annex 18 for more information on threats and root
causes).
4.
If allowed to remain unchecked and unplanned, this development will result in long-term
loss of biodiversity, ecological functioning and, contrary to the national poverty eradication
1
Namibian Wildlife Resorts based in the coastal zone rank high among 18 primary tourism destinations: Cape Cross
2nd, Namib Naukluft 3rd, Hardap 6th, West Coast 12th and Skeleton 13th.
2
MAWRD estimates that Namibia’s internal water resources will be exhausted by 2020.
8
objectives, a reduction of the economic potential of the coast itself. This possibility presents the
greatest potential challenge to the expanding nature-based tourism industry, which depends upon
a healthy environment for its success. Tourism has proven so popular along the Namibian coast
that, in high season, the region’s population nearly doubles, as tourists from South Africa,
Germany and other countries arrive to enjoy the unique and relatively pristine coastal habitats.
Environmental degradation and habitat conversion can destroy the very features that draw
tourists, resulting in both a loss of global biodiversity and lost local economic opportunities.
5.
These growing threats are exacerbated by the lack of integrated conservation and
development planning in the Namibian coastal region, coupled with poor management of
resources in the face of increased pressures. For example, despite the serious threat to water
supply and quality, there is currently no integrated water management system; nor is there any
available assessment of the principal economic activities, in terms of their socio-economic and
environmental costs and benefits. This lack of sound economic and environmental baseline data
makes it difficult for national, regional and local government to agree on how to define a
sustainable coastal zone development framework, including the promotion of diversified
livelihood options for coastal populations (see Annex 9).
National and regional development goals
6.
The Government of the Republic of Namibia’s (GRN) medium-term vision is to
transform itself from a developing lower-middle-income country into an industrially developed
high-income country by the year 2030.3 Achievement of this vision is guided by the “Namibia
Vision 2030 Policy Framework for Long Term National Development” – a broad, unifying
“targets list” that guides five-year National Development Plans (NDPs). The current plan, NDP 2
(for 2001/02-2005/06) targets poverty reduction, sustainable development of rural areas, the
provision of health services to the majority of the population and the strengthening of human
capital.
7.
NDP 2 is the first development plan to include a volume dealing specifically with
regional development issues - the Regional Development Plans (RDPs). Since Independence,
Namibia has made slow but steady progress in moving away from a very nationalized approach,
rooted in the apartheid regime, toward decentralization (see Annex 19). Development planning in
Namibia now takes place at three levels: national, sectoral and regional, and NDP 2 includes
objectives such as strengthening capacity building at the regional level, ensuring effective
decentralized regional planning based on participatory approaches and optimizing the use of
regional potentials.
8.
However, the current situation in Namibia demonstrates that there is a gap between these
guiding strategies and the economic, environmental and institutional reality in the country.
Decentralization progress has been much slower than anticipated; poverty levels are still very
high (about 56 percent of the 1.83 million Namibians have been designated as poor or very
3
Namibia ranks as a LMI (Lower Middle-Income) Country (based on GDP per capita), 68 th out of 173 countries,
and as a Medium Human Development (MHD) Country (based on Human Development Index), 122 nd out of 173
countries. Its Government Effectiveness Index shows the 3 rd highest score of all MHD countries. Its law and order
score is the best possible, and it has the lowest level of corruption of any MHD country.
9
poor4); national economic growth is heavily dependent on one resource-based activity, the
mining industry, with minimal opportunities for creation of employment and benefits for the rest
of the economy and potentially negative environmental impacts; and the divide between rural
and urban, northern and southern regions, and rich and poor persists and is even growing.
Government strategy for sustainable development of the coastal zone
9.
The Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project (NACOMA) is
part of the GRN’s strategy to promote sustainable economic development in the coastal zone and
address its local, regional, national and global environmental priorities. Two key elements of the
Government’s environmental strategy are its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
(NBSAP), developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and Namibia’s
Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD), as submitted to the Convention to Combat
Desertification (CCD). The NBSAP highlights the need for support for currently under-protected
key biodiversity hotspots, adequate input into the process of zoning, development of guidelines
and environmental assessment of proposed aquaculture developments, and inclusion of relevant
NBSAP components into the RDPs (see Annex 4). Within NAPCOD, targeted investments,
capacity building and enhancement of decentralization are regarded as key elements for halting
land degradation.
10.
The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) plans to merge the biodiversity and
desertification Programs, in order to foster synergies and focus on integrated approaches for
natural resource management, bio-trade and desert research. MET is supporting a capacitybuilding program related to NAPCOD and NBSAP for key stakeholders, and Integrated Coastal
Zone Management (ICZM) is expected to be included among the identified priority themes. A
few other complementary donor-funded projects and programs aim to conserve coastal and
marine biodiversity in and outside biodiversity hotspots and conservation areas, and to
strengthen capacity to accelerate and improve the decentralization process (see Annex 2).
11.
The Government has identified three key gaps in its overall strategy and resources, for
which it seeks support: development of environmental legislation, progress on
decentralization and creation of an institutional framework for ICZM:
(i) Environmental legislation
12.
Namibia currently has no modern legislation on integrated water management,
biodiversity conservation/protected area management or environmental aspects of mining,
although draft laws are under consideration. In addition, although Namibia has a range of
sectoral policies and strategies that deal with natural resource management, biodiversity and
other coast-related matters, the mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues (such as biodiversity
conservation) into these sectoral policies, strategies and implementation activities at the national,
regional and local levels – as proposed and planned under the NBSAP and other strategies – is
still a distant goal.
4
Source: Draft CEM Namibia 2004.
10
13.
A major long-awaited piece of legislation, the draft Environmental Management and
Assessment Bill (EMB), would incorporate Environmental Impact Assessment procedures into
Namibian law. However, it is not clear how far the EMB’s provisions would apply to sectoral
coastal projects that could threaten Namibia’s coastal integrity, and there is no indication of
whether the EMB will provide for strategic environmental assessment of relevant policies and
plans in line with international best practices (e.g. under the CBD).
Other key issues in the GRN’s relevant draft legislation include:
1. Planning and decision-making for potentially damaging activities within protected areas
(MET/MME/MWTC/MFMR/MLRR);
2. Conservation of biodiversity outside formally designated areas (e.g. at the regional
landscape scale), and use of ecological corridors and buffer zones (MET/MAWRD);
3. Possibility of mixed terrestrial/marine protected areas (MET/MFMR);
4. Transboundary cooperation on area and species management (MET); and
5. Protection of threatened and endangered marine species (MET/MFMR).
14.
The Government seeks to undertake a legal and policy review of its current legislative
and regulatory framework, to identify areas for potential adjustment, modernization and
harmonization of that legislation.
(ii) Decentralization
15.
The Government’s ongoing decentralization process is an important component of
strengthening regional and local development and promoting sustainable management of coastal
resources. Currently, planning, implementation and assessment of coastal zone issues is
fragmented and under the authority of several central line ministries, including MET, the
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), the Ministry of Regional and Local
Government Housing (MRLGH), the Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), the Ministry of
Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation (MLRR), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural
Development (MAWRD) and the Ministry of Water, Transport and Communication (MWTC).
At the same time, regional and local authorities5 operate without a clear legal framework and
with overlapping mandates and limited funds. Regional Councils (RCs), local authorities (LAs)
and line ministries’ field staff lack the human, technical and financial capacity to undertake their
duties as currently defined (see Annex 19).
16.
Centralized control has also impacted resource protection efforts along the coast. A
significant portion of the coastline has been designated as protected area, mainly before
Independence, although levels of protection have been uneven, and in some areas clearly
insufficient. These designations have meant that there is an unusually high level of nationalized
control and an unusually low level of regional and local authority involvement in coastal land
management.
17.
Despite the slow progress to date, the government continues to officially reconfirm its
commitment to advancing its decentralization agenda, with the ultimate goal of devolution.
Positive results over the past year have included: (i) clarification of the development and
5
The main local authorities/government in the coast are Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Henties Bay and Lüderitz.
There are also many smaller municipalities, “autonomous” villages and settlements.
11
planning mandates of RCs and inclusion of those critical functions in the RDPs; (ii) revision of
the Regional Council Organization Structure to accommodate functions to be decentralized; and
(iii) preparation of two donor-funded decentralization support projects. However, to date only a
few planning officers have been recruited, and Line Ministry Action Plans pertaining to the
decentralized functions of the relevant Ministries have yet to be developed and implemented
(e.g. MET). Thus, despite the need and expressed desire for an integrated conservation and
development approach to regional planning, environmental concerns are currently poorly
incorporated in RDPs, and environmental planning and management (through community-based
natural resource management (CBNRM) and community-based forestry) are proposed but, in
practice, still absent.
18.
The GRN’s strategy to empower previously disadvantaged Namibians and facilitate the
decentralization of natural resource management and biodiversity conservation includes
development of a comprehensive coastal management policy process to provide for the transition
from national to regional and local planning and management, and concurrent institutional and
capacity building of the regional and local government machinery, its partners in civil society
and other associated players (see Annex 19).
(iii) Institutional framework for ICZM
19.
A key entity for coastal resource management in Namibia is the Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Committee (ICZMC),6 which was established by the four coastal RCs from a small
ICZM project in the Erongo Region (see Annex 2). The ICZMC, which is governed by the
National Council, Regional Councils, Local Authorities and Council of Traditional Leaders,
seeks to develop a common approach to sustainable development of the coastal zone, share
lessons learned and seek inter-regional synergies. The committee co-exists with other structures
for cooperative management and sustainable utilization of shared border rivers.7 At sea, the
BCLME Programme is investigating the need for and feasibility of a Benguela Current
Commission (BCC) that could provide for synergetic linkages to the ICZMC (see Annex 6).
20.
Nevertheless, the current ICZMC lacks technical and financial capacity and a clear
political and functional mandate. The committee needs to be substantially strengthened through a
strong enabling environment, targeted capacity building and targeted membership, in order to
create a sustainable and well-connected coastal zone management institution to spearhead
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
21.
The GRN also recognizes the need for a common vision for all stakeholders about the
sustainable use and management of biodiversity and coastal zone resources. Such a vision is
currently absent, due to the lack of sufficient information about the environmental and economic
situation of the Namib coast and the four administrative coastal regions and their contribution to
national and regional development. In addition, the weak or non-existent coordination, both
6
The ICZMC currently consists of the four regional governors, four national councilors and the four Chief
Executive Officers. Additionally, the ICZMC includes line ministry officials from MET, MRLGH, MME and
MFMR.
7
Permanent Joint Technical Commission on the Kunene River (Namibia-Angola 1990) and Permanent Water
Commission on the Orange River (Namibia-South Africa 1992).
12
among regions and between local and regional, and regional and national, decision-makers
hampers the development of a common vision and strategy. This is particularly a problem in the
interface between the regional and local levels, and is a critical issues to be addressed, because of
the rapid growth of coastal towns, the autonomy of the urban growth poles and their proximity to
biodiversity hotspots.
22.
A common vision, together with a new Coastal Zone Management Policy Framework and
a strengthened ICZMC, will provide a basis to ensure policy consistency throughout the coastal
ecosystem. This is essential for activities with potentially long-distance impacts (e.g.
maintenance of coastal fisheries nursery and spawning areas, choice of fish stock for
aquaculture, extraction and mining projects) that could affect erosion and soil deposition
regimes.
2. Rationale for Bank involvement
23.
The Bank, as the GEF Implementing Agency and with its solid experience with ICZM
Projects worldwide, has been requested by the four coastal regions (represented by the ICZMC),
MRLGH and MET to support national and regional strategic efforts toward the development and
implementation of decentralized biodiversity and coastal conservation, and inter-sectoral
cooperation and coordination.
24.
The Bank’s involvement in Namibia has focused on technical assistance to support the
government’s efforts to reduce poverty, to support decentralization and local development, to
analyze various sources of growth, and to identify suitable options to strengthen human capital
development, including knowledge management. Of relevance for the NACOMA design are the
Bank's successful experiences as lead agency of a multi-donor initiative supporting the GRN in
the development of a strongly participatory and high-quality White Paper on National Water
Policy and Water Resources Management Bill.
25.
The Project will build on and make further contributions to these activities, as it aims to
develop capacity for coastal zone management that will spearhead conservation and sustainable
use of biodiversity at the national, regional and local levels; provide financial support to coastal
zone development plans; encourage diversification of growth sources; support mainstreaming
and decentralization of biodiversity conservation-related functions; and support the participation
of a broad range of stakeholders in development of the country’s coastal zone policy. The
continuous environmental dialogue between the Bank and the GRN on the management of
Namibia’s valuable natural resources, and in particular its environmental assets, has already led
to the preparation of two other operations.8 Other environmental support to date includes GEF
Focal Point support and technical assistance for targeted environmental studies. In addition, the
Bank has been requested to provide support for Economic Sector Work on identifying best land
management practices for environmental sustainability. It has also supported, through the World
Bank Institute (WBI), a GEF International Waters pilot initiative, Distance Learning Information
8
These are the Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA) Project, launched in November
2004, and the Promoting Environmental Sustainability through Improved Land Use Planning (PESILUP) Project,
currently under preparation.
13
Sharing Tool (DLIST)9, which aims to facilitate knowledge sharing, make available distance
learning options in ICZM, identify linkages, and strengthen stakeholder communication and
ground level institutions mainly related to the BCLME and associated coastal areas. Finally,
specific capacity-building synergies are expected between the NACOMA Project and the Bank’s
Sub-National Government Project, which is currently under preparation (see Annex 2).
3. Higher level objectives to which the Project contributes
National objectives
26.
NACOMA will contribute to the objectives of NDP 210 and Vision 2030, including
cross-cutting issues such as enabling capacity-building of stakeholders and institutions and, most
importantly, environmental sustainability. In particular, the Project will support efforts under
NDP 2 to mainstream biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the emerging
decentralization process by developing the relevant institutional capacities of regional and local
government as well as key national level players.
27.
The Rural Profile and Strategic Framework (RPSF), prepared by the Namibia
National Planning Commission with the European Union (EU) as a governing framework for
rural development programs in Namibia, identifies decentralization of rural institutions as a key
area that requires the close attention of the Government. The Project will address the issue of
decentralization of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use-related functions by serving as
a pilot for decentralization of specific functions of the MET and contributing strongly to
implementation of the MET Directorate of Environmental Affairs’ (DEA) biodiversity and
desertific ation programs in coastal areas.
28.
While there is no country assistance strategy (CAS) for Namibia at present, the Bank is
working with the Government of Namibia to prepare a Country Economic Memorandum
(CEM) that will support the Government’s objectives by providing in-depth analysis and
guidance to develop a pro-poor growth strategy to address concerns related to inequality as well
as growth. Such a framework would also strengthen the partnership between the Bank and
Namibia and form the basis for addressing the key challenges of achieving sustainable growth
and reducing poverty and inequality, by capitalizing on the achievement of the Government and
the comparative advantages of the Bank. The NACOMA Project is in line with the CEM
framework, as it contributes to the dialogue between the Bank and the GRN, promotes the
building of capacity among national and local governments and broadens the income base within
the coastal regions.
World Bank and GEF objectives
29.
NACOMA corresponds to the Africa Region’s strategic directions for coastal and marine
environmental management, as it acts to remove barriers to conservation of fragile coastal and
9
www.dlist.org
It is expected that throughout and even after NACOMA’s implementation phase, integrated coastal zone
management will become a component of NDP 3 and associated RDPs.
10
14
marine ecosystems through adaptive management, learning and information sharing,
strengthening the institutional core and improving the quality of life of local communities.
30.
The activities of the Project are also fully consistent with the priorities of the GEF
Operational Program 2 (OP2) for Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. Specifically, the
Project is compatible with OP2’s opportunities to promote the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity of coastal and marine resources under threat, and to promote the
conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components in environmentally vulnerable
areas. The Project will do so by focusing on:
i) Promoting the use of integrated marine and coastal zone management as the most suitable
framework for addressing mainstreaming and conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity
and for promoting its conservation and sustainable use (in conjunction with UNDP/NPA Project
and UNDP/BCLME Programme – see Annex 2);
ii) Establishing and strengthening of systems of conservation areas including MPAs (in
conjunction with UNDP/NPA Project and UNDP/BCLME Programme – see Annex 2)11;
iii) Applying a transboundary ecosystem approach to marine and coastal zone management;
iv) Addressing identified driving forces determining status and trends of coastal and marine
biodiversity;
v) Linking to national, regional and local development and conservation priorities and objectives
as defined in the Vision 2030, NDP 3, NBSAP, RDPs, local agenda 21 and environmental
management plans and other related documents;
vi) Building capacity among stakeholders in coastal regions related to integrated coastal zone
planning, management and monitoring;
vii) Promoting targeted survey and management activities for identifying particular coastal and
marine areas that should be conserved to represent major habitat types and their species; and
viii) Raising environmental awareness among all stakeholders.
31.
Further, the Project responds to GEF's crosscutting and biodiversity as well as capacitybuilding strategic priorities as outlined in its Strategic Business Plan FY04-FY06. In line with
GEF’s Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2 (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes
and Sectors), the Project will facilitate the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation within
production systems that may threaten biodiversity (mainly tourism, mining, fisheries) by
fostering broad-based integration of biodiversity conservation within the country’s development
agenda. This integration would be achieved through the development of systemic and
institutional capacities of line ministries, regional councils and local authorities, targeted
investments in biodiversity conservation and creation of an enabling environment based on a
joint national vision for the coast, as well as through the project implementation arrangements. In
line with GEF’s Biodiversity Strategic Priority 1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas),
the Project will facilitate biodiversity conservation through the expansion and rationalization of
the National Protected Areas on the coast (see Map in Annex 17) by means of the establishment
of the first Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and their embedment in national and local
legislation, as well as through capacity-building and targeted investments for improved
management.
11
NACOMA will deal with regional scale mainstreaming of coastal and marine conservation areas, whereas the
NPA Project under preparation deals holistically with the national system of terrestrial Protected Areas.
15
Global objectives
32.
The Project follows guidance from the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD, as it
addresses in situ conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and, more importantly,
multiple-use, system-oriented modes of coastal ecosystem management principles. The
Convention, in its decision II/10, adopted by the COP at its second meeting in Jakarta in
November 1995, encouraged the wide adoption and implementation of Integrated Marine and
Coastal Area Management (IMCAM) as a means for effective conservation and sustainable use
of marine and coastal biological diversity. It describes IMCAM as the most suitable participatory
framework for addressing human impacts (prevention, control or mitigation) on marine and
coastal biological diversity and for promoting its conservation and sustainable use. It also
encourages Parties to establish and/or strengthen, where appropriate, institutional, administrative,
and legislative arrangements for the development of integrated management of marine and
coastal ecosystems, plans and strategies for marine and coastal areas, and their integration within
national development plans. According to that decision, crucial components of IMCAM are
relevant sectoral activities, such as construction and mining in coastal areas, mariculture,
tourism, recreation, fishing practices and land-based activities, including watershed management,
all of which are relevant to NACOMA’s intervention area.
33.
NACOMA will also provide a framework to address some of the key United Nations
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), and objectives of the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD) and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD,
Johannesburg 2002). MDG No. 7 promotes integration of the principles of sustainable
development into country policies to reverse the loss of environmental resources. Similarly, the
NEPAD framework, which emphasized the pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place
African countries, both collectively and individually, on a path of sustainable growth and
development, places great importance on the inclusion of environmental issues. The NEPAD
Environment Initiative further targets priority interventions such as coastal management for
protection and utilization of resources to optimal effect, environmental governance for securing
institutional, legal, planning, training and capacity-building requirements, and a structured and
fair financing system for sustainable socio-economic development. Other major elements of
NEPAD are good governance and decentralization, which are seen as the root of sustainable
development. The WSSD’s goals of Water and Sanitation, Energy, Health, Agriculture and
Biodiversity (WEHAB) identify institutional, technical, juridical and capacity-related obstacles
for biodiversity and sustainable ecosystem management and, thus, promote the integration of
biodiversity concerns and values into overall sustainable development strategies and plans, as
well as the management of biodiversity in a socio-economic context. NACOMA will address and
respond to these important objectives by mainstreaming coastal zone conservation and
management into Namibia’s development policies, building institutional capacity, and promoting
decentralized regional planning of the Namib coast.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
34.
The Project takes into account national and international lessons learned from
biodiversity conservation under ICZM approaches, which demonstrate the need to go beyond
pure conservation measures. It uses two main avenues for enhancing coastal biodiversity
16
conservation and sustainable use: (i) Targeted investments on the ground and other direct
activities leading to improved coastal and marine biodiversity conservation; and (ii)
Mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and sustainable use principles into development
planning, sectoral policies, national, regional and local decision-making processes, and capacitybuilding measures linked to the production landscape. NACOMA’s intervention area will stretch
over the entire Namibian coastal ecosystem (including defined marine ecosystems) and will thus
enhance the integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems (see map in Annex 17 and description of
Project intervention area in Annex 4).
1. Financial modality
35.
NACOMA will be funded through a GEF grant of $4.9 million, over a period of 5 years.
2. Project development (and global) objective
36.
The Project development (and global) objective is: Conservation, sustainable use and
mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia strengthened.12
Outcome indicators
37.
i. X km2 and number of terrestrial and marine13 biodiversity hotspots under effective
management as defined by NAMETT14 by year 5 compared with baseline situation.
ii. Flow of economic benefits from activities linked to ecosystem and biodiversity
management on the coast has increased by year 5 compared with baseline situation.
iii. Biodiversity related aspects are incorporated into all up-coming sector policies
(tourism, fisheries, mining and urban development) at national, regional and local levels,
as identified in the White Paper, by year 5.
3. Project components
The global objective builds directly on Strategic Objective 6 of the Namibian NBSAP, which is to ‘Strengthen the
implementation of the Constitution of Namibia (Article 95L) by adopting measures to improve the protection of
coastal and marine ecosystems, biological diversity and essential ecological processes, and to improve knowledge,
awareness, and the sustainability of resource use’.”
13
In the project context, marine hotspots are meant to be MPAs: MPAs are here defined based on IUCN’s definition
(Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General Assembly, 1988, reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46, 1994): “Any area of
intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna, historical and cultural
features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed
environment.”
14
“Effective management” would be assessed through use of the Namibian adapted WWF/WB PA tracking tool
(NAMETT), a score card for PAs and MPAs.
12
17
38.
As a result of the Project, targeted enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use, in particular those related to mainstreaming into coastal management and
development planning at the national, regional and local levels, will be improved, and a strategic
approach will be put in place to address root causes of biodiversity loss and coastal degradation
(see section B, Annex 3 and 4). The environmental and economic potential of the coast will
consequently be sustained, and the Project would thus provide local, regional, national,
international (in particular benefits to its riparian coastal states, Angola and South Africa) and
global benefits.
39.
Below is a summary of the four interlinked components and sub-components of the
NACOMA Project (see Annex 4 for a detailed Project description):
Component 1: Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem
Management of the Namib Coast (GEF US$: 0.91 million)
Sector issue addressed and expected outcomes
40.
The objective of this component is to mainstream biodiversity conservation and
management into policy, legal and institutional structures affecting the sustainable development
of the coastal zone of Namibia. Existing national, regional, local and sectoral frameworks,
including Vision 2030, NDP 2, RDPs, NBSAP and NAPCOD, all call for sustainable
development of the coastal zone. Through a review of current laws and support for appropriate
amendments, this component will help in the development of modern, harmonized
environmental legislation and coastal zone policy, while its efforts to clarify institutional
mandates will contribute to the decentralization process and the establishment of a clear
institutional framework for ICZM. The production of a formal White Paper detailing the
rationale for a national coastal policy and setting out objectives and strategies for implementation
based on the principles of biodiversity conservation and integrated coastal zone management15
will contribute toward a common vision for Namibia’s coast. The Namibia Coastal Management
White Paper will provide an overarching and comprehensive framework to support integrated
planning and decision-making related to coastal lands and waters, based on the carrying capacity
of the Namibian coast as a whole. It will be based on a highly participatory approach involving
the identified stakeholder groups in multiple consultations and meetings (see Annex 20 for an
outline of the project participation plan).
Primary target group
41.
National (mainly MET, MFMR, MME, MAWRD, MWTC, MRGLH), regional and local
governments involved in CZM.
Sub-components (see Annex 4 for a detailed description)
I.1. Review of Existing Laws and Support for Appropriate Legislation
42.
Existing legislation, from which respective ordinances derive mandates to set regulations
for coastal zone management, result in an overlap in the jurisdictional areas of different relevant
15
According to the CBD definition of IMCAM.
18
line ministries, such as MET, MME, MFMR and MAWRD. This sub-component will support a
review of and appropriate amendments to these acts and enhance their harmonization consistent
with principles of ICZM and with results from sub-component I.2 (clear definition of
jurisdictional areas for these line ministries). Importantly, this sub-component will provide the
MET with targeted support and technical assistance in establishing the scope and process of
measures related to National Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which is a critical
instrument to enable and support ICZM and mainstreaming of biodiversity.
I.2. Clarification of Institutional Mandates
43.
This sub-component will provide institutional and, to a certain extent, legal input to
support a shift from nationalized to regional and local management of biodiversity and coastal
resources through their mainstreaming into the ongoing decentralization process. The
clarification of institutional mandates will be particularly relevant for the ICZMC, which could
potentially be the lead structure to facilitate mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity conservation
management and sustainable use into sectoral policies and actions. 16
I.3. Development of Policy Framework
44.
Based on sub-components I.1 and I.2, this key sub-component supports the development
of a highly participatory national coastal vision and ICZM policy framework, the Coastal
Management White Paper, to guide national, regional and local planning and management
processes in terms of principles, objectives and substantive content relating to coastal resource
conservation, development planning, socio-economic issues and enforcement. Emphasis will be
placed on providing access to benefits from coastal resources for local communities (including
tourism activities and other economically beneficial developments such as aquaculture and
fisheries), while enforcing the protection of areas of national and global interest, including
wetlands and fragile watersheds. It will facilitate the GRN’s commitment to ICZM by providing
basic principles and components to integrate into future NDPs and associated RDPs, consistent
with the goals of Vision 2030. This sub-component includes the organization of a series of
broad-based stakeholder consultations and facilitator workshops (see Annex 17). An outline of
the proposed approach (principles, methodologies, scope and content) of the White Paper has
been developed and will be attached to the PIM.
I.4. Development of Coastal Profiles
45.
Through the participatory development of regional coastal profiles, this sub-component
will further bridge the knowledge gap about socio-economic, environmental and biodiversity
conservation and development issues and their inter-related linkages. These profiles will in turn
be used as a basis mainly for local and regional, as well as national, decision-making processes
relevant for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and will feed back into the State of
Environment Report and National Resource Accounting efforts. The profiles will be published,
reviewed, endorsed and up-dated on a regular basis by the Regional Councils.
16
A key lesson learned from the closed Erongo Region ICZM Project is that without institutionalized coordination,
fragmentation occurs. Therefore, institutional arrangements need to be supported that are sustainable and survive
any Project arrangements (e.g. ICZMC).
19
Specific outcomes
46.
(i) Policy and legal framework relevant to coastal zone management clarified and,
following a prioritization process, harmonized.
(ii) Roles and mandates of line ministries, RCs and LAs clarified with regard to
conservation and sustainable use of coastal biodiversity, and definitions in place for
coastal zone planning and management.
(iii) A collaborative vision for the conservation and sustainable use of the Namib coast
developed and used as a basis for a draft comprehensive coastal zone policy framework,
the Namibia Coastal Management Green Paper and a first draft White Paper.
(iv) Regional coastal information available and used regularly in local and regional
decision-making processes.
(v) Increased budget allocations for ICZM-related issues by relevant line ministries,
including from improved capture of the rent linked to the resource base.
Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity
Conservation (GEF US$: 1.52 million)
Sector issue addressed and expected outcomes
47.
Capacity-building has been identified as one of the main bottlenecks for sustainable
development in Namibia (see Vision 2030, NDP 2 mid-term review and National Capacity Self
Assessment (NCSA) reports). Moreover, it is widely recognized that the lack of capacity at the
national, regional and local levels for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including its
mainstreaming, stems from (i) a shortage of qualified staff and restricted budget for additional
positions; (ii) limited resources and time for training activities; (iii) uncoordinated sectoral
efforts; (iv) the slow decentralization process; (v) limited understanding of coastal biodiversity
and linkages to development planning and management; and, finally, (vi) weak and fragmented
communication channels between the various stakeholders.
48.
This component will fill the capacity gap at the local, regional and national levels in
support of ICZM, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including mainstreaming of
coastal biodiversity and resources into development planning and key economic activities. By
providing training for ICZM and developing M&E and knowledge management systems, the
component will contribute to the ongoing decentralization process as well as the development of
an effective institutional framework for ICZM.
Primary target group
49.
Local, regional and national government (MME, MET, MFMR, MRGLH, MWTC,
MAWRD), ICZMC members, RDCs involved in CZM.
Sub-components (see Annex 4 for detailed description)
II.1. Training for ICZM
50.
Based on the results from sub-components I.1 and I.2. and the available training needs
assessment for regional, local and national government (mainly MET), this sub-component will
20
partner with other initiatives to provide cost-effective training to the identified stakeholder
groups (ICZMC, RCs, LA, line ministries). Identified capacity-building measures cutting across
components 1, 2 and 3 relate to
 Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM - planning and management including
management plans);
 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA);
 GIS and mapping;
 Monitoring and Evaluation;
 Participatory approaches (communities, private sector, government); and
 Communication and negotiation skills.
These measures will be provided through (i) technical assistance through the Environmental
Advisors (see component 4), and national and international thematic experts, (ii) thematic
training workshops, (iii) on-the-job training, and (iv) study tours.
51.
Finally, this sub-component will provide targeted support to MET’s efforts to mainstream
and decentralize biodiversity management by specifically strengthening local and regional
delivery mechanisms.
II.2. Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism
52.
This sub-component will involve the review of existing biodiversity M&E systems, and
assessment of coastal and marine biodiversity data and information gaps and needs. Further, it
will support the development or upgrading of a cost-effective, accessible and sustainable method
for a long-term coastal and marine biodiversity M&E system linked to other national
environmental monitoring efforts and the coastal profiles.
II.3. Coastal Biodiversity Knowledge Management
53.
This sub-component has two sub-objectives: One is to develop a knowledge management
mechanism (network), led by ICZMC, to allow stakeholders to share information (e.g. on
management plans, interventions, mainstreaming opportunities, meetings, training), including
feedback loops for inter-sectoral, vertical and international sharing of lessons and best practices
related to ICZM and mainstreaming coastal biodiversity management into development
planning. The other is to create an action-oriented communication strategy that will increase
environmental awareness among all key target groups and facilitate ownership and full public
participation in the Coastal Vision and White Paper development process.
Specific outcomes
54.
(i) Capacity and resources of RCs, LAs, MET, MME, MAWRD, MFMR and MWTC are
strengthened to undertake functional and strategic coast-relevant planning and decisionmaking process conducive to biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming thereof into
RDPs, NDPs and investment decisions (e.g. by RDCCs).
(ii) The ICZMC has been strengthened and is fully operational.
(iii) Knowledge related to coastal biodiversity and sustainable use is enhanced, including
mainstreaming into development planning and coastal zone management through
improved communication channels at local, regional and national level.
21
(iv) Awareness of the importance of coastal zone resources and ICZM among
stakeholders and local communities is enhanced.
Component 3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation,
Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming (GEF: US$ 1.52 million)
Sector issue addressed and expected outcomes
55.
NACOMA has been designed to seek a balance between support for enabling
environments (e.g. management plans) for investments in established and new conservation
areas, and mainstreaming efforts in coastal and marine production landscapes through the
participatory approach supported by the ICZMC and at the regional level by the RDCC. These
activities will make use of the regional coastal profiles and existing national, regional and local
development and biodiversity priorities (e.g. RDPs, NBSAP) and their implementation.
56.
This component will contribute to the overall framework for ICZM along the Namib
coast by using targeted investments and activities to address on-the-ground gaps in coastal
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use throughout the Namib coastal and marine
ecosystems rooted in under- and un-protected biodiversity hotspots. These activities will be
complemented by MET’s NPA Project, which addresses management and sustainability issues in
targeted national terrestrial parks. 17
57.
The Project, through this component, will focus on a combination of coastal and marine
biodiversity priority sites (see Annex 18 and 17) including:
i. Terrestrial coastline hotspots that are currently under-protected or un-protected,
including Ramsar sites and other wetlands of biodiversity value that lack tools for
management; and
ii. Marine protected areas (though none currently exist, they are urgently needed) and
other unprotected islands and near-shore sites.
Primary target group
58.
Local, regional and national government (mainly MET, MAWRD, MFMR, MME,
MWTC) involved in CZM, local communities and the private sector in and around biodiversity
hotspots.
Sub-components (see Annex 4 for detailed description)
III.1. Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Plans
59.
This sub-component includes a participatory review, update and development of
management plans for key biodiversity priority conservation sites and their buffer zones (e.g.
Skeleton coastlines, Ramsar sites, future MPA sites), in line with recommendations on the
appropriate financial and institutional mechanisms and capacity development needs emerging
17
NACOMA will look at the coastal-related inter-sectoral links and integration of planning efforts at national,
regional and local scales, while the UNDP/GEF supported NPA Project will focus on PA-specific management and
operational plans.
22
from Components 1 and 2. Further, this sub-component aims to support the creation of new
protected areas (e.g. three Marine Protected Areas and Walvis Bay Nature Reserve); in order to
increase functioning biodiversity conservation management in priority coastal areas, demarcation
and gazetting of these sites will be supported.
III.2. Implementation of Priority Actions under the Management Plans
60.
This sub-component will support implementation of reviewed and updated or new
management plans through targeted investments related both to biodiversity conservation and
rehabilitation, as well as sustainable use activities linking biodiversity conservation with
economic development and benefits for the local coastal communities in and outside identified
hotspots. It prioritizes sustainable use activities with high potential for piloting, testing and
learning (replicability). Targeted and site-specific investments that are eligible for funding under
the NACOMA Project ( providing global environmental benefits in addition to local ones) have
been identified during preparation. Potential biodiversity conservation activities as outlined in
existing management plans are: GIS surveys and mapping, species-specific conservation
measures (e.g. for Damara tern, flamingos and lichen fields), control and regulation measures
(e.g. sports fishing, quad biking), soil erosion control and vegetation cover rehabilitation.
Potential investments related to sustainable use include income-generating activities that are
connected to ecosystem services, such as guiding facilities, ecotourism (desert hikes, campsites),
rehabilitation of existing tourism facilities such as desert paths, viewing sites and sign posts,
sustainable fish farming, etc. This sub-component would further provide support for limited
infrastructure and equipment for site management purposes.
Specific outcomes
61.
(i) Strengthened and mainstreamed network of costal and marine conservation areas with
defined and improved management plans under implementation.
(ii) Enhanced biodiversity status in critical ecosystems of Namibia’s coastal and marine
area.
(iii) Co-management of conservation areas (including buffer zones) consistent with
conservation and sustainable uses objectives.
Component 4: Project Management and Performance Monitoring (GEF US$: 0.95 million)
Sector issue addressed and expected outcomes
62.
This component reflects the incremental need for an operational project coordination
structure. The Project, through this component, will support the establishment and
operationalization (through staffing, office infrastructure and Project management-related
capacity building) of a slim Project Management Unit (PMU) housed in the Erongo Regional
Council. The Erongo Regional Council hosts currently the ICZMC Secretariat as well as the
NACOMA preparation coordinator.
Primary target group
63.
Project Management Unit staff.
23
Sub-components (see Annex 4 for detailed description)
IV.1. Project Office and Management
64.
This sub-component will support the recruitment of three long-term staff, a NACOMA
Coordinator and two Environmental Advisors. Additional PMU support staff for administration,
financial management and procurement and monitoring will be contracted or outsourced on a
part-time basis.
IV.2. Project Reporting and Information
65.
This sub-component will include performance and impact monitoring, evaluation of
Project progress and M&E reporting, all responsibilities of the PMU (see Annex 6).
Specific outcomes
66.
(i) Successful Project implementation according to Project Implementation Manual,
EMP and annual work plans.
Successful implementation of NACOMA’s four components as described above will lead to
global benefits in the form of enhanced biodiversity conservation (at habitat, species and
ecosystem levels) and sustainable resource use in the terrestrial and marine coastal ecosystems of
Namibia (see intervention zone definition in Annex 4), as well as enhanced environmental
management and planning, mainly at local, regional and national levels.
4. Lessons learned and reflected in the Project design
67.
The Project has been designed based on experience and lessons learned related to coastal
zone management and biodiversity conservation. In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), poverty remains
one of the biggest threats to successful conservation and management of coastal biodiversity. A
general pattern has emerged of rapidly growing coastal cities and settlements with rising
unemployment rates that put increased pressures on the integrity of coastal ecosystems. Although
policy frameworks addressing coastal management have already been established by a number of
African states, development of institutional and legal frameworks to support implementation of
these policies has not yet been targeted in most countries around Africa’s coastline. The Project
has carefully taken into account experiences within the region and adapted strategic directions
provided in the “Integrated Coastal Management in SSA: Lessons Learned and Strategic
Directions”18:
68.
(i) Lack of enabling legal and regulatory frameworks, together with significant
constraints in human resource skills and institutional capacity, have resulted in limited
sustainability of operations targeting conservation and sustainable use of coastal biodiversity in
SSA. Long-term effects have further been curtailed by ad-hoc approaches with narrow sectoral
focus. Overlapping issues, jurisdictions and impacts of integrated coastal management require
adequate institutions to guarantee the necessary interagency coordination and interaction.
18
Indumathie Hewawasam, Integrated Coastal Management in Sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons Learned and Strategic
Directions, 2001.
24
69.
NACOMA will address these critical needs by i) supporting development of policy, legal
and regulatory frameworks in Component 1; ii) promoting capacity building, in particular for
integrated coastal zone planning, management and monitoring for the Regional Councils, Line
Ministries and Local Authorities, in Component 2; (iii) providing funds for urgently needed
targeted investments to maintain key biodiversity values in priority sites in Component 3; and
(iv) strengthening the ICZMC to become a sustainable coastal zone entity.
70.
(ii) Conservation operations targeting coastal resources in SSA have often been limited in
scope, funding and commitment. Particularly in light of scarce financing options, partnership
building and networking has proven to be significant in promoting conservation operations.
71.
The NACOMA Project addresses this issue by encompassing the entire coast. In addition,
the Project has been developed in close coordination with the BCLME Programme to
complement sub-regional objectives with coastal priorities and activities, as well as with the
Finnish and French support projects to advance the decentralization process and the UNDP
support for national protected areas.
72.
(iii) Transparency in decision-making and public participation in program design have
been critical for project success in SSA.
73.
Throughout the Project preparation process, NACOMA has sought to facilitate ownership
and initiative by national, regional and local stakeholders through the ICZMC, public
consultations and information dissemination. Further, NACOMA has been cooperating with the
follow-up initiative of the pilot DLIST, which has been used actively by Project stakeholders
during the preparation process as an information platform for sharing ideas, experiences and
documents. Future approaches to foster communication, coordination and learning by using
DLIST services and others are now under discussion. A detailed Project Participation Plan is
being developed as part of the Project preparation phase and will be closely linked to the
communication strategy under Component 2 (see Annex 20).
74.
(iv) Availability of scientific data and information on which to base policy frameworks
and management plans has been a major challenge for most ICZM projects in SSA.
75.
The Project will support the establishment of a national coastal zone scientific group in
which the main national research institutions are expected to participate. The main hosts of
scientific coastal and marine data are currently the BCLME and BENEFIT (Benguela
Environment Fisheries Interaction and Training) programmes. The results of ongoing scientific
assessments, in particular those related to the status of the coastal and marine ecosystems and
biodiversity and impacts of offshore and on-shore mining and fisheries, will be made available to
NACOMA and the proposed scientific group. The Project also plans to support the development
of a joint database and coastal monitoring mechanisms. Other information, such as coastal data
for the Erongo Region19 various land use plans and the COFAD report20 on potential MPAs on
19
From a previous pilot study funded by the Danish Agency for Cooperation and Development (DANCED).
Advisory Assistance to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Baseline Study of the Establishment of
Marine Reserves in Namibia – Short Term Consultancy Report, 1998.
20
25
the Namibian coastline, will be collected and made accessible to all stakeholders, and used to
update the coastal profiles under Component 1.
76.
In summary, the following key ICZM supportive elements and success criteria have
been identified and integrated into the NACOMA Project design:







Involvement, commitment and ownership of national and local authorities;
Emphasis on the integration of economic, social and environmental issues (i.e. not
isolating the environmental agenda);
Movement away from small-scattered projects;
Ensured financial sustainability;
Adequate understanding of local socio-economic, ecological and cultural factors and
efforts to bridge the knowledge gaps on these issues;
Existence of inter-sectoral coordination through a mechanism, backed by high-level
political authority, to bring together stakeholders on a continuing basis; and
Targeted human and institutional training and capacity building based on innovative
approaches to instill ecosystem and multi-sector processes.
Lessons from similar projects in Namibia (see also Annex 2)
77.
(i) The objective of the DANCED-financed pilot Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Project in the Erongo Region (1997-2000) was to achieve and maintain long-term sustainable
economic and ecological development of the coastal zone through establishment of baseline data
for resource management and fostering of the decentralization process within the Erongo Region.
Its main driving force was to address environmental protection of the coast as an ecosystem,
rather than focusing only on animal protection and fishing of protected species, as previous
conservation efforts in Namibia had done. The project succeeded in bringing together
stakeholders to pool ideas, knowledge and experiences to develop a draft vision for regional
coastal management. One outcome was the creation of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management
Committee (ICZMC) in 1990. The project was also instrumental in raising awareness about the
need to share information among the coastal regions. However, by the end of the project,
inadequate integration of planning and resource management still prevailed, a situation that was
seen as being partly caused by the lack of high-level support for the ICZMC as well as the fact
that the decentralization process did not reach a stage where delegation of powers was actually
transferred. Therefore, the final evaluation report recommended that any potential follow-up
support would require clear operational structures of RCs.
78.
NACOMA design: The Project builds on the positive and critical lessons learned from
the DANCED-supported ICZM Project, which identified mainly the slow decentralization
progress and the resulting shortage of qualified staff for environmental planning in the Regional
Council as a key barrier for achieving Project objectives. NACOMA timeliness is demonstrated
by the fact that (i) most planning positions in Regional Councils are being filled and
organizational structures are being clarified, (ii) decentralization is progressing with some line
ministries (e.g. MAWRD) ready to launch an actual process over the coming months, (iii) RCs
are in the process of designating a responsible person as regional Coastal Zone Focal Point
(CZFP), and (iv) other complementary initiatives provide capacity-building to RCs and
26
MRLGH. Further, lessons learned have been used to design flexible and adaptable Project
implementation arrangements, a strong inter-sectoral Steering Committee with representatives
from the regions, and the need and scope for capacity-building and institution-building through
two Technical Advisors (environmental planners) for the four regions.
79.
(ii) The regional UNDP/GEF Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme
(BCLME) under implementation in Angola, Namibia and South Africa for about 2 years, aims to
implement a Strategic Action Programme to ensure sustainable use of marine resources in the
BCLME. The project will enhance the capacity of the region to understand and predict system
dynamics and manage ecosystem impacts. A limited number of pollution and coastal zone
activities are also included. Lessons learned of relevance for the NACOMA project are: (i) the
task of setting up multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder technical and advisory groups proved more
time consuming than expected; and (ii) a sustained communication and media campaign is
essential to raise public awareness and garner high level political support for project activities
and to provide the grounds for sustaining management interventions. Involvement of the entire
spectrum of stakeholders is important, including decentralized levels of government and coastal
communities. As an information sharing platform accessible to all, DLIST has contributed
significantly to that aim.
80.
NACOMA design: The Project builds and expands on the BCLME Programme’s
experiences in Namibia in several ways, including: (i) Component 1 has been designed to
provide a realistic time budget for stakeholder consultations to establish the institutional and
policy framework for ICZM, the White Paper; (ii) Component 2 includes the development of a
comprehensive communication strategy and action plan as well as capacity-building measures
for local, regional and national stakeholders to use and adapt available information; and (iii)
NACOMA will build on its initial experiences (during preparation) and the BCLME
Programme’s positive experiences with DLIST and use it as a major platform for information
exchange and facilitation.
5. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
81.
The main alternatives considered but rejected were:
i. No coastal zone management Project, with the expectation that the decentralization process
would transfer environmental responsibility to the regions. This option was rejected as the
analysis during the first project preparation phase (PDF-A) showed that the present capacity gap
(human, financial and knowledge) mainly within MET and the coastal RCs and LAs represented
substantial barriers toward this delegation of authority. Without any additional support, there
would be very slow, limited and insufficient progress with environmental decentralization, while
at the same time human-induced pressure on the coast would increase and thus globally
significant biodiversity and other natural resources would be threatened and/or reduced.
ii. A conventional biodiversity hotspot conservation Project managed by MET without an ICZM
framework, without participation from regional and local government, and with less focus on
mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation in the regions. This alternative was rejected as the
Bank’s (and other donor’s) experiences with CZM projects and initiatives around the world
27
clearly indicate the fundamental need to establish a participatory ICZM framework with
involvement from all key stakeholders in order to ensure impact and sustainability.
iii. Continued support to the Erongo Region as initiated by the DANCED Project and based on
the lessons learned, in order to address the inadequate integration of planning and resource
management. Implementation of the Project would have been through the establishment of a
PMU within MET, to address the need for a national committee and bypass the slow
decentralization process. An incentive to choose this option was the high chance for Project
success within the Erongo Region, due to relatively favorable conditions in this region in terms
of resources available, infrastructure in place and accessibility to accumulated knowledge from
the DANCED Project. This option was, however, rejected as a result of the understanding by the
regions and the Bank that ICZM cannot be restricted to one region if the conservation of
biodiversity along the entire Namib coast is to be promoted in an effective and sustainable
manner. It was further recognized that information and experience from the DANCED Project
should be shared with the three other coastal regions rather than exclusively kept within the
Erongo region. Finally, consultation with key stakeholders from the four coastal regions and line
ministries has emphasized the need to facilitate, rather than prevaricate, the decentralization of
conservation-related responsibilities to the coastal regions.
C. IMPLEMENTATION
1. Partnership arrangements
82.
The principle of building partnerships between different levels of government and the
private sector, NGOs and communities is at the heart of ICZM and, thus, the NACOMA Project.
A number of other development partners are supporting programs and activities that complement
the Project (see Annex 2). NACOMA aims to develop two specific partnership arrangements to
be finalized by time of appraisal:
(i)
MET and MRLGH: To pilot environmental decentralization with support from Finnish and
French decentralization projects in one or two coastal regions (e.g. Erongo and Karas
where MET’s regional offices are located on the coast). Joint tasks include the definition
of functions and staff needs, secondment of MET’s regional staff and coordination for
targeted capacity building support measures at the regional and local levels.
(ii) MET and MFMR: To provide for joint coastal and marine science and management
(building and maintaining a coastal and marine data and M&E mechanism), joint
designation and processing of MPAs, institutional linkages between ICZMC and the
proposed Benguela Current Commission (BCC), and knowledge linkages based on
communication action plans.
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements
83.
The NACOMA Project will be implemented over 5 years. The implementation
arrangements (see Annex 6), which will be reviewed and finalized during Project appraisal, are
guided by the following considerations:
(i)
Sustainability: The Project will use existing structures, for example the ICZMC and
the Erongo Regional Council will host the Project Management Unit (PMU);
28
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Fostering the decentralization process: NACOMA will serve as a pilot for MET’s
efforts to mainstream and decentralize coastal biodiversity management, thus
enlarging MET’s proposed decentralization functions (CBNRM and communityforestry);
Absorptive capacity: NACOMA will provide technical assistance to the RCs, LAs,
and line ministries over the Project period, with decreasing support based on a
stakeholder needs assessment; and
Lessons learned: Experience with the Erongo ICZM Project and institutional review
during Project preparation have shown the importance of phasing support and
focusing on actions and reachable targets.
84.
For these reasons, NACOMA’s design is based on a flexible and adaptable approach to
institutional arrangements; based on progress with decentralization, necessary adjustments will
be identified at mid-term, with the aim of simplifying them. This design is also a risk mitigation
measure. The key institutions that will guide implementation of NACOMA include:
(i) Steering Committee: A manageable Project Steering Committee (SC) will be established to
build coordination and communication between key sectors at the national level and between
national and regional governments. The SC will also support the ongoing decentralization of
relevant functions to RCs. Because the SC will include only members with existing legal
powers and duties, it is a tool for more effective coordination and targeting at the coastal
zone, rather than a new bureaucracy. Until mid-term, members would include:
 A high-level representative each from MET (Chair), MRLGH, MFMR and MME.
Representatives of MAWRD and MWTC should also be included, probably following midterm;
 A high level representative from each Regional Council, to ensure parity and strong regional
participation; and
 A representative of the NACOMA Project Management Unit, which will function as the
secretariat of the SC.
(ii) Project Management Unit (PMU): The PMU, which will report to the SC, will be hosted by
the ICZMC Secretariat based in the RC Erongo offices. The PMU will consist of a full-time
Project Coordinator responsible for overall coordination and implementation, a full-time
Administrative Assistant, a part-time M&E Specialist, and two technical advisors for coastal
zone planning and management. Procurement and financial management functions are
expected to be outsourced to reduce PMU costs. The PMU’s mandate is to implement SC
decisions, including delivery of funds to selected activities. Its main functions and tasks are
related to:
 Operational Project coordination, cooperation and management;
 Project monitoring, auditing and reporting, including budget matters;
 Development of annual work plan; and
 Secretariat of SC.
(iii) ICZMC: The ICZMC will serve as an advisory body to the Project, and its role and function
will be reconstituted with high-level endorsement (see Annex 6). Its membership will
include:
29
 NGOs, co-opted members (e.g. NPA Project, BCLME Programme etc.) and potentially a
representative from the private sector to ensure coordination;
 Line ministries, through a technical ICZM focal point (FP) in each ministry; and
 RCs, through a nominated RC coastal zone focus point (CZFP) for each region.
In the second half of the Project (after mid-term), NACOMA will create a regional sub-ICZMC
within the RDCC, using enhanced capacity building, training and a strengthened enabling
environment (including implementation of the public awareness and communication strategy).
(v)
Scientific Group (SG) on coastal biodiversity and ICZM: Namibia currently has no
formalized scientific group of coastal zone experts and institutions to provide information and
guidance. Therefore, stakeholders expressed the need to formalize an SG by the time of Project
effectiveness, to guide NACOMA implementation and facilitate access to and use of relevant
data, including BENEFIT, MET’s own biodiversity knowledge base and MFMR’s monitoring
base. The Project’s preferred approach is to channel scientific input through existing structures
as far as possible, to avoid excess cost or bureaucracy. Potential members of the SG could
include Namibian Long-term Ecological Research (NaLTER), the National Museum of Namibia
(NMN), the National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI), the Desert Research Foundation in
Namibia (DRFN), the Gobabeb Training and Research Centre (GTRC), the University of
Namibia (UNAM) and the National Marine Information and Research Centre (NatMIRC). It is
proposed to nest this scientific group within BENEFIT and/or the proposed BCC, as the focus on
marine/coastal issues is identical and because it would open up links to complementary
research/resources/data in neighboring countries.
The SG would contribute to the NACOMA process by:
 Providing scientific input as requested by any NACOMA entity (SC, ICZMC, PMU), in
particular for development of coastal profiles;
 Assisting the PMU in screening candidate investments for NACOMA funding under
Component 3 (e.g. assessment of environmental impact and benefits);
 Assisting with developing M&E indicators for a coastal zone management M&E mechanism;
and
 Contributing to targeted capacity building efforts under Component 2, in collaboration with
development planners and Technical Assistants.
3. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomes/results
Data
85.
The data for the outcomes and accompanying results indicators will come from different
sources. Limited CZM data collection has started prior and during preparation (facilitated with
help from NGOs, BLCME, BENEFIT and the Erongo RC ICZM Project) and would be pursued
with support from NACOMA under the leadership of the ICZMC and the scientific group.
Additional baseline data for key biodiversity target sites will be collected and refined during
30
preparation and the first year of the Project, with support from associated Projects. 21 Protected
areas’ management effectiveness would be assessed through use of the Namibian adapted
WWF/WB PA tracking tool - Namibian Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT),
a score card for PAs and MPAs (after further adaptation).
86.
An M&E plan has been developed during Project preparation, and sufficient resources
have been allocated in the Project budget under Component 4 to implement this plan. The M&E
plan addresses both Project performance and impact and identifies key indicators, mid-term and
end-term targets and responsibilities for data collection. The progress for each component would
be measured by selected agreed indicators, which would be finalized at appraisal. Mid-term and
end of project targets have been defined and will be finalized at appraisal.
Responsibilities and capacities
87.
The PMU, in particular the M&E specialist, will be responsible for regular project related
data collection, analysis, management and reporting. Capacity building efforts will include onthe-job training for the relevant staff of the PMU, RCs, LAs and Line Ministries involved in
Project implementation.
Use of project related results
88.
NACOMA aims to build on positive feedback on the quality and use of the established
BCLME program’s M&E system and thus incorporate or link its coastal zone specific project
data to the larger BCLME program’s meta database, if technically feasible. Details will be
worked out during appraisal.
89.
Project related data might be further used to feed into the updating of the coastal profiles
on an annual basis. Linkages to the communication action plan will be established to inform all
key coastal stakeholders on a regular basis about project results, progress and identified issues
through identified dissemination tools (e.g. DLIST, NACOMA newsletter, web page, media
announcements, etc.).
90.
The PMU’s coordinator, supported by the M&E specialist, would prepare quarterly
reports on implementation progress based on all key performance and results indicators.
91.
An external mid-term review (MTR) would be carried out as well as an external final
evaluation at the end of the Project (an Implementation Completion Report (ICR) will be
prepared). The MTR will identify strengths and weaknesses to reinforce good experiences and
adjust project design as needed. The Project would support a stakeholder ICR review process,
wherein all the major relevant stakeholders will participate to provide input into the Project’s
findings and recommendations for potential follow-up support.
4. Sustainability and replicability
21
Data from ongoing BCLME assessments cover status of biodiversity in coastal areas, impact of diamond on-shore
and off-shore mining and fisheries, etc.
31
92.
The Project is highly country-driven. It is based on a previous ICZM Project in the
Erongo Region and was developed by the four coastal Regional Councils with full support from
MRLGH and MET. The Project preparation process included a PDF-A and a PDF-B grant and
provided for extensive inter-sectoral stakeholder consultations (see Annex 20 on Project
Participation Plan) across the four regions, including national and local government.
Factors for sustainability and Project design
93.
NACOMA has been designed to integrate the main elements of sustainability
(institutional, financial, environmental and knowledge) at the national, regional and local levels.
In addition, because the most effective way to achieve sustainability is to provide defined
incentives to involved stakeholders, the Project design aims to balance incentives and interests of
the different stakeholders through its four components and implementation arrangements. The
sustainability elements of the Project include:
(i)
Institutional Sustainability:
NACOMA is an integral part of GRN strategy and addresses key government sustainable
development policy objectives, including enhancing environmental planning and coordination
procedures within government, protecting essential ecosystems, creating conservation areas with
high levels of biodiversity, supporting the decentralization process and, to a lesser degree,
improving rural livelihoods and poverty reduction. Importantly, the Project provides a unique
and important opportunity to make the Namibian coast and its resources more accessible for
people in the coastal regions and elsewhere in the country.
Collaborative responsibility and coordinated actions toward sustainable use of biodiversity in the
coastal zone will depend on the success of Component 1, the definition of mandates and the
formulation of a guiding policy (the White Paper on ICZM), which will in turn clarify roles and
functions of key stakeholders at various levels and allow for the development of new or
harmonized regulations. Although incentives for supporting this process vary, key institutions
have subscribed to this process and endorsed the Project (see Annex 6 and 20).
The Project will be executed through existing national, regional and local government structures
and does not intend to create a new entity. Institutional sustainability will be achieved by a focus
on strengthening currently rather weak (in terms of environmental capacity) RCs and the
ICZMC, as well as targeted line ministries and LAs if needed. In particular, the PMU, because of
its location, will increase the institutional capacity of the Erongo Region RC, as it will transfer
Project planning, management and monitoring skills to regional and local staff. Throughout the
Project’s lifetime, the strengthening of ICZMC’s capacity, agreement and recognition of a legal
mandate and expanded membership will most likely lead toward an official designation as a
national entity responsible for CZM. Such an entity would be closely linked to the proposed
future BCC. Furthermore, the activities of NACOMA’s Component 2 on targeted capacity
building are well embedded in MET’s new biodiversity training framework.
Partnerships: NACOMA cannot address all issues of integrated coastal zone management alone.
ICZM in Namibia needs support from international, national, regional, and local partners. The
32
Project will in particular support the building and fostering of two operational partnerships: MET
and MFMR and MET and MRGLH. Other linkages with donors (see Annex 2), national,
regional and local governments, civil society groups, communities, the private sector and
national, international research institutions will be developed and enhanced through the
implementation of the Project Participation Plan and related communication strategy.
(ii)
Financial sustainability: Component 1 will review the institutional mandates of the key
stakeholders under the decentralization process, including options to strengthen the financial
base of RCs. MET and MRLGH will both provide budget allocations related to RC planning
capacities and coastal zone management, and it is expected that this budget allocation will
increase over and after the Project period. Through close coordination with municipalities,
further increased local funding for environmental management of coastal urban centers is
expected. Component 1 will also investigate additional fundraising options, such as tapping into
the Environmental Investment Fund (EIF), the Trust Fund for Equity and other mechanisms
during and after the Project’s lifetime.
Finally, two detailed environmental economic analyses, which are currently being finalized (one
by NPA/MET for all National Protected Areas, and another by NACOMA/MET for the coast),
indicate that the natural resource base is the first engine for growth and livelihoods on the coast,
generating a significant amount of resources. This work is the first step in a more detailed
economic, financial and fiscal review of the activities that take place on the coast. Sustainable
management and conservation on the coast could be financially sustained if the rent coming out
of the use of the natural resources and the ecosystem services on the coast could be better
captured.
(iii) Environmental sustainability: Achieving environmental sustainability of fragile coastal
ecosystems is at the heart of NACOMA, and cuts across the entire Project design. Environmental
sustainability for Namibia’s coastal zone depends on the interrelation of an enabled institutional,
policy, legal and financial framework, as well as on targeted investments focusing on
rehabilitation and restoration of biodiversity sites and mainstreaming biodiversity conservation
into local, regional and national development planning. The participatory process to develop and
revise management plans for biodiversity hotspots is expected to facilitate bridging the gap
between options for economic growth and biodiversity conservation.
The Project Participation Plan and communication action plan will complement other efforts in
the coastal regions on environmental impact and values. Its successful implementation is
expected to contribute to attitudinal and behavioral changes among coastal stakeholders, as they
will be better able to understand the direct and indirect value of the coastal biodiversity assets,
the need for their protection and opportunities for their sustainable use.
(iv)
Knowledge sustainability: Past experience has shown that the substantial amounts of data
and information generated by projects is often not properly shared or used by stakeholders and,
more importantly, may become inaccessible after the project ends. Thus, during the preparation
of NACOMA, stakeholders have already started to use DLIST as a platform for information
sharing, preparation and publishing of reports, and sharing experiences and perspectives of
stakeholders; this will continue during implementation. It is extremely important that the entire
33
spectrum of stakeholders be involved in NACOMA; including decentralized levels of
government and coastal communities and DLIST services to provide an accessible information
sharing platform to all will contribute significantly to that aim. Project related information
outputs, such as the regional coastal profiles, are expected to feed into the State of the
Environment Reports and form the basis of the RC’s environmental development decisions as
reflected in the RDP and NDPs. The communication strategy will avoid costly and unsustainable
Project related information products and focus on low-cost adapted solutions (e.g. to ensure that
coastal zone profiles and web pages do not dry out after the Project lifetime). In addition, the
institutional arrangements and partnerships with other initiatives are expected to contribute
positively to a more sustainable information base and knowledge transfer. At mid-term, a full
knowledge strategy and action plan for long-term sustainability will be consolidated and
potential gaps identified.
94.
Nonetheless, despite all these important sustainability elements, no Project can fully
guarantee the sustainability of a coastal zone management process, as this is a long-term
undertaking, which requires substantial resources and commitment over time. NACOMA is no
exception to this rule. The need and benefits of potential follow-up support would be assessed as
part of the ICR conclusions.
Replication strategy
95.
As it is thoroughly tied in with public sector reform processes, decentralization policies
and legislation, the NACOMA Project has a very high potential for replication of biodiversity
conservation and mainstreaming into regional development planning and management in other
regions (coastal and non-coastal). Assuming that the four coastal regions do not progress at the
same pace, the Project can use lessons learned in one coastal region for support in another
coastal region. Therefore, a replication plan would be prepared after 30 months and reviewed by
all key stakeholders. This plan would identify the main lessons learned and requirements to
ensure that the outputs and outcomes of the Project would be used in other regions. In particular
successful lessons from Walvis Bay are expected to assist the municipality of Lüderitz with
similar local environmental management plans and multi-stakeholder fora. The use of the
expanded DLIST platform following the pilot phase will be one of the main tools for regional
information sharing and replication.
5. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
96.
Risks
To Project development (and
global) objective
Insufficient EA legislation and
legal framework in Namibia
Risk Mitigation Measures
Provision of targeted support and
technical assistance to the MET to
enhance the adoption and
implementation of the
Environmental Management and
Risk Rating
with Mitigation
M
34
Assessment Bill
Financial sustainability at two
levels:
i) The long-term ICZM process
ii) Following the creation of new
conservation areas, particularly
MPAs
To component results
Component 1
Difficulty to find common grounds
preventing an agreement between
key sectoral line ministries on
scope and content of White Paper,
and related responsibilities for its
implementation
M
Strengthened capacity and
financing for ICZM at local,
regional and national level during
Project implementation
Better capture of the rent coming
out of the use of natural resources
and ecosystem services on the coast
through targeted investments based
on robust environmental economics
analyses
1. Clearly defined roadmap and a
highly participatory and transparent
process leading to joint vision for
ICZM based on identified
incentives and benefits.
M to S
2. ICZMC expanded membership,
including CZ FP in each line
ministries at technical level to
facilitate consultation process
1. Policy commitment from MET
and MRLGH to pilot BD
conservation decentralization in
coastal regions
Slow progress in decentralization
of line ministries and building
capacities of BD conservationrelated responsibilities among the
coastal RCs and LAs
2. Partnerships with other
decentralization support initiatives,
such as the French and Finnish
programs (formalized joint work
plan)
Regional advisors will monitor the
Component 2
Increased capacity of staff to
pace of capacity building and will
absorb additional responsibilities make adjustments accordingly
proves to be too slow
Mandates will be clarified under
Component 3
Limited technical capacity to
component 1 and capacity will be
prepare and implement on-theassessed and provided accordingly
ground activities and insufficient under component 2
clarification of responsibilities
among lead agencies
M
M
M
35
Component 4
Disagreement between key
stakeholders may stretch the
capacity of PMU
Assistance to reaching a dialogue
will be provided by the Project
under component 1 complemented
by flexible implementation
arrangements
Overall risk rating




M
M
High Risk (H)—greater than 75 percent probability that the outcome/result will not be achieved.
Substantial Risk (S)—probability of 50-75 percent that the outcome/result will not be achieved.
Modest Risk (M)—probability of 25-50 percent that the outcome/result will not be achieved.
Low or Negligible Risk (N)—probability of less than 25 percent that the outcome/result will not be achieved.
6. Grant conditions and covenants
97.
Based on the AFR regional criteria for readiness, the following conditions are proposed:
Negotiations
1) Counterpart funding for the first year of implementation allocated in Government annual
budget conditional on parliamentary approval;
2) The Recipient has adopted and furnished to the Bank a PIM in form and substance satisfactory
to the Bank, including a first year work program, 18 months procurement plan;
3) Agreement on format for Financial Monitoring Reports;
4) Audit arrangements agreed and draft Terms of Reference for appointment of auditor/s
available;
5) M&E system in place: baseline established, performance indicators agreed, data collection
strategy in place.
Effectiveness
1) Project Management Unit staff appointed by the SC
2) The Recipient has established a financial management system for the Project in form and
substance satisfactory to the Bank (software and hardware configuration adapted to financial
management system in place);
3) The Recipient has opened the Counterpart Funds accounts (by MET and MRLGH) and has
deposited therein the Initial Deposits referred to in Section XX in the Grant Agreement;
4) The Recipient has appointed an Auditor/s as per the agreed audit arrangements draft Terms of
Reference.
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY
(To be finalized at appraisal)
1. Economic and financial analyses
36
98.
The Project’s incremental funding as related to the Project components, is summarized
below. The Project’s baseline funding (national contribution and donor-supported parallel funds)
are included in the Incremental Cost Analysis (Annex 15)
Project Component
Component 1: Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework
for Sustainable Ecosystem Management of the Namib Coast
Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone
Management and Biodiversity Conservation
Component 3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems
for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and
Mainstreaming
Component 4: Project Management and Performance
Monitoring
Total Project Financing
GEF
(USD million)
0.91
1.52
1.52
0.95
4.9
99.
Incremental Costs. Technical Annex 15 provides the incremental cost assessment and
benefits of the GEF Project.
100. Cost-Effectiveness. The Project’s design and scope is consistent with GEF guidelines,
and its global objective corresponds to OP2. The economic, social and environmental benefits of
the Project cannot all be estimated.
101. Following an initial environmental economic analysis during the NACOMA Project
preparation, economic values associated with the different natural resources of the Namib coast
have been estimated. The findings of this analysis, together with the findings of an
environmental economics study undertaken by UNDP22, which focuses on tourism and national
PAs, are summarized in Annex 9. The assignment results confirm the NACOMA Project design,
and indicate the need for further research and analysis, which will be added to the ongoing
preparation phase. The findings will feed back into project implementation through the vision
process and White Paper (Component 1), capacity building (Component 2) and sustainable use
investments (Component 3). The report will be published and made accessible to all stakeholders
as part of the knowledge management system.
2. Technical
102. The project includes development of an ICZM policy framework, development of coastal
profiles, capacity building activities and on the ground investments, which will be designed and
undertaken by qualified professionals (both national and international), thus ensuring a high level
of technical soundness and quality assurance.
Turpie et al. 2004. Strengthening Namibia’s System of National Protected Areas: Economic Analysis and
Feasibility Study for Financing Namibia’s Protected Areas. Unpublished report to the Ministry of Environment and
Tourism.
22
37
103. Furthermore, the external STAP review, which focuses on the scientific and technical
soundness of a project, did not identify any technical issues for the NACOMA Project (see
Annex 16). However, the project preparation indicated two technical issues, which will be
assessed during the up-coming appraisal mission:
(i) Methodology for development of the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper (i.e.
goal and principles setting, consultative process, scope and content including action plan)
is under discussion (see component 3 in Annex 4) and will be finalized prior
effectiveness.
(ii) Guidelines for sustainable use investments: There is a need, in addition to the
information contained in the EMP regarding investment screening and mitigation, to
clarify the scope of some of the identified eligible investments.
3. Fiduciary
104. World Bank procedures and requirements will be implemented for all financial
management, procurement and auditing activities of the Project. Details about financial,
disbursement and procurement arrangements will be finalized at appraisal and included in
Annexes 7 and 8, respectively.
4. Social
105. The Namib coast remains one of the least populated regions in the world, as a result of
both its physical features, which make it largely unsuitable for agriculture and human settlement,
and forced relocation of people in selected areas and planning policies. In early 1999, the coastal
population was estimated to be around 100,000 people (approximately 6.5 percent of the national
population). Human settlement along the Namibian coast is confined to five principal nodes:
Henties Bay, Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Lüderitz and Oranjemund (see Annex 17), but
urbanization and growth of informal settlements have recently been increasing.
106. As the coast is gradually being opened up to the public and developers, it is important
that local stakeholders take part in coastal development while being appreciative of the
importance of preserving coastal biodiversity. By capacitating these stakeholders to contribute to
the inter-sectoral policy and decision-making process and raising their awareness to the
importance of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, the Project aims to promote this
goal.
107. The NACOMA Project has been developed through an extensively interactive and
inclusive dialogue between these key players, the Bank and other donors in the region, through a
series of workshops, roundtables and discussion meetings. Stakeholders have contributed
significantly to the definition of the Project’s intervention area, its components and their design,
envisaged outputs and activities to achieve the outputs, implementation and institutional
arrangements and future ICZM design and implementation. Wide and inclusive participation of
stakeholders will also be sought and monitored during Project implementation, as described in
the Project’s Public Participation Plan (see Annex 20). Finally, the Project performance M&E
system includes indicators to measure public perception and knowledge of ICZM issues, as well
as social impacts of the Project in the coastal area and around hotspots.
38
108. With regard to World Bank Safeguard policies, it is agreed that in the unlikely event
where the Project includes activities that would necessitate a resettlement process framework
under OP 4.12, the PPP would cover additional elements of such a framework, specific to the
particular area in which access is to be restricted. These would consist of: (a) the process
whereby compensatory measures will be formulated and agreed on for persons whose livelihoods
are adversely affected, (b) grievance procedures, (c) legal/administrative procedures, and (d)
monitoring arrangements. Such a grievance or appeals process would be managed by the PMU
as entity overseeing PPP’s implementation. If the complainant will not be satisfied, he or she
would then have recourse to a disinterested agency that has responsibility for protecting the
rights of citizens in the area.
5. Environment
109. The NACOMA project is intended to have an overall positive and significant impact on
the environment by establishing a policy, regulatory and institutional framework for
environmentally sustainable growth and resource management and through on-the-ground
conservation activities that will largely focus on biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation,
sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems, targeted information, education, communication (IEC)
activities and targeted research activities.
110. The classes of eligible on-the-ground activities under the project, which were identified,
along with a list of ineligible activities, by stakeholders during project preparation, indicate
project-funded activities that are likely to have no adverse impacts on the environment, or
minimal impacts that are site-specific, easy to mitigate, and technically and institutionally
manageable.
111. However, as small-scale physical works (e.g, upgrading of environment information
centers) may be funded by the project, an Environmental Management Plan (EMP) was
requested by ASPEN to ensure that the project’s on-the-ground activities are carried out in line
with World Bank Environmental Assessment (EA) Policy and similar Namibian EA
requirements, and to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigated prior
to the implementation of any on-the-ground activities (see also section 6 and Annex 10).
112. Based on the above, an EMP was prepared by the recipient, consisting of sets of criteria
and guidelines that describe process, indicators, roles and responsibilities for managing and
implementing physical investments in terms of their environmental integrity. The EMP also
indicates the capacity needed for the above-mentioned activities and budgetary implications,
which have been integrated into the Project’s design and financial plan. It will later become part
of the M&E manual of the Project Implementation Manual (PIM) and annual work plans. The
EMP was reviewed and approved by ASPEN, and is expected to be disclosed at the World Bank
InfoShop and in country by time of appraisal.
39
6. Safeguard policies
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project
Environmental Assessment (OP/BP/GP 4.01)
Natural Habitats (OP/BP 4.04)
Pest Management (OP 4.09)
Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.11)
Involuntary Resettlement (OP/BP 4.12)
Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10)
Forests (OP/BP 4.36)
Safety of Dams (OP/BP 4.37)
Projects in Disputed Areas (OP/BP/GP 7.60)
Projects on International Waterways (OP/BP/GP 7.50)
Yes
[X]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
No
[]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
[X]
113.
As NACOMA is classified as an environmental safeguard category “B” project
(because it may fund small-scale physical works), the recipient prepared an EMP to ensure that
the Project’s on-the-ground activities are implemented to comply with World Bank EA Policy
OP 4.01 and similar Namibian EA requirements, and to ensure that mitigation measures are
spelled out for all possible negative impacts prior to implementation of any on-the-ground
activities (see also section D/5 and Annex 10).
114.
In the unlikely event that the Project includes activities that would necessitate a
resettlement process framework under OP 4.12, the PPP would cover additional elements of such
a framework, specific to the particular area in which access is to be restricted, including a
process whereby compensatory measures will be formulated and agreed on for persons whose
livelihoods are adversely affected, grievance procedures, legal/administrative procedures, and
monitoring arrangements (see more in Annexes 6, 10 and 20).
115. The GRN, specifically the MET, has gained experience with applying safeguard policies
for project development based on another recently approved project (the Integrated Communitybased Ecosystem Management – ICEMA project), for which an Environmental and Social
Assessment and Management Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework, and an Indigenous
Peoples Development Plan were prepared and disclosed by the MET. Adequate technical and
legal capacity and expertise exist in Namibia (governments: DEA/MET, non-governmental
SAIEA, NEPRU and private sector) for developing mitigation and management plans, as well as
relevant environmental monitoring.
7. Policy exceptions and readiness
116.
The Project does not require any exceptions from Bank policies.
40
Annex 1: Country and Sector Background
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
I. Country Background
1.
Namibia is the most arid country south of the Sahel occupying 823,680 km 2 with a
population of almost 2 million people distributed in 13 political regions. The country
gained Independence from then apartheid South African rule in 1990.
2.
Due to the low productivity of the country, caused by low and erratic rainfall, scarce
ground and surface water resources and relatively low primary productivity (see below),
less than 5 percent of Namibia are considered appropriate for arable agriculture, including
through irrigation. Still, Namibia’s formal and informal economy are highly dependent on
the natural resource base, mainly mining, agriculture, fishing, and wildlife-based tourism,
and, to some extent, livestock farming. Minerals, fisheries and agricultural land (livestock
and cropping) account together for roughly 30 percent of GDP, 85 percent of exports and
about 10 percent of government revenues (see Table 1 below).
3.
It is striking that Namibia has one of the highest Gini coefficients in the World, 0.7 percent,
marking a severe gap between a wealthy minority and poor majority of people. The divide
of poor and wealthy is often underlined by differential opportunities for education, health
and security, to name a few. Social divide had been exacerbated during apartheid rule and
since Independence Namibia has focused on capacity building and human resources
development as key strategies for alleviating the imbalances of the past.
Table 1: Trends in Socio-economic Development in Namibia between 1994 and Today
Indicator
Population
Absolute Values
1994
1,526,000
Growth rate (%)
Life expectancy at birth (Years)
2.7 (3.4)
55.6
Households in absolute poverty in %
Gini coefficient
Human Development Index
Urban population in %2
GDP N$(Mio.)
GDP per capita N$ (Mio.)
% Share of agriculture in GDP
% Share of communal area
agriculture
% Share of commercial area
agric.
% Share of the informal sector in
GDP
% Share of fishing in GDP
38
0.7
0.624
36
12,204
7,894
7.6
?
?
Absolute Values
(most recent year)
1,954,033 (2004
est.) 1
1.25 (2004 est.) 1
43.1 (2001)
40.53 (2004 est.) 1
24.7 (2000) 3
0.7 (2001)
0.648 (2000)
43 (2000)
15,074 (2000)
8,154 (2000)
5.6 (2000)
2.8 (2000)
2.8 (2000)
Information Source5
2,3
2
2,4
5, 2
3, 5
3
4
1
4
1
4
4
(est. from 1)
1.3
3.8
0.7
4.9
1
41
% Share of mining in GDP
% Share of manufacturing in GDP
% Water & electricity in GDP
% Share of construction in GDP
% Share of trade, hotels, restaurants
in GDP
% Share of transport &
communication in GDP
% Share of banks, insurance &
business services in GDP
% Share of general Government in
GDP
% Share of social and personal
services in GDP
% Share of taxes (less subsidies) in
GDP
10.8
11.8
2
2.7
13
10.2
2.4
2
9.3
10.4
6.4
5.8
12.3
12.7
20.6
20.5
0.9
0.8
10.5
11
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
These estimates explicitly take into account the effects of excess mortality due to AIDS, this can results in lower life expectancy,
higher infant mortality and death rates, lower population growth rates, changes in the distribution of population by age and sex
than would otherwise be expected (July 2004 est.). The HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate was estimated at 21.3% in 2003; CIA –
The World Fact Book, Namibia http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook.
2 Urban defined as settlements of >5000 people in which <than 25% indulge in agricultural activities. This number does not
correspond with the alleged 71% of people directly living on agricultural production, unless the 24.99% estimate of people living
in the settlements is considered to be indulging in agriculture.
3 This places Namibia at rank 114th out of 171 countries worldwide. There are recent reports that absolute poverty is on the
increase again in Namibia, mainly attributed to the impact of HIV/AIDS
5Sources: (1) CBS, 2001; (2) CIA, 2004; (3) UNDP, 2001, (4) MAWRD, 2000, (5) HHI/ES 1993/1994, (6) de Klerk, 2004
National development goals
4.
Namibia has a medium-term vision to transform itself from a developing lower-middleincome country to an industrially developed high-income country by the year 2030.23 The
Government of the Republic of Namibia’s (GRN) strategy to achieve this vision is guided by the
“Namibia Vision 2030 Policy Framework for Long Term National Development” - a broad,
unifying “targets list” that serves to guide five-year National Development Plans (NDPs). NDP
2’s (for 2001/02 – 2005/06) key targets address poverty reduction, the bringing of sustainable
development to rural areas, the provision of health services to the majority of the population, and
the strengthening of human capital. Importantly, NDP 2 includes, for the first time, a volume
dealing specifically with regional development issues - the Regional Development Plans (RDPs).
5.
The priority national development objectives of Vision 2030 include the need to revive
and sustain economic growth and human resource development, create employment, sustain the
resource base while maximizing its potential for improving incomes and livelihoods, create an
enabling environment and reduce regional development inequalities. To achieve these objectives,
responsive national strategies focus on the promotion of environmental and ecological
sustainability, participatory development and equity, and an increase in productivity and
23
Namibia ranks as a LMI (Lower Middle-Income) Country (based on GDP per capita), 68 th out of 173 countries,
and as a Medium Human Development (MHD) Country (based on Human Development Index), 122 nd out of 173
countries. Its Government Effectiveness Index shows the 3 rd highest score of all MHD countries. Its law and order
score is the best possible, and it has the lowest level of corruption of any MHD country.
42
development of human resources. Vision 2030 clearly highlights the move from sectoral to
integrated planning and from outputs to outcomes.
II. Project Related Sector Issues
Decentralization (see Annex 19 for detailed overview)
6.
Since Independence, Namibia has made slow but progressive efforts to move away from
a very nationalized approach – rooted in the apartheid regime - toward decentralization (see
Annex 19). Development Planning in Namibia now takes place at three levels: national, sectoral
and regional. Volume two of NDP 2, on regional planning and development, identifies specific
objectives such as strengthening capacity building at the regional level, ensuring effective
decentralized regional planning based on participatory approaches and optimizing the use of
regional potentials.
7.
Proposed actions include accelerating the decentralization policy, ensuring that budget
allocations are provided to influence regional development positively and undertaking regional
planning training programs tailor-made for councilors, planners and community representatives.
It is expected that the RDPs will become an integral part of NDP 3 in the future. At the regional
level, Regional Councils are the authorities responsible for setting and coordinating regional
policies and priorities, as well as for overseeing implementation of regional development
activities. These Councils get support through a Regional Development Coordination Committee
(RDCC), with representatives from line ministries, local authorities, traditional authorities, nongovernmental organizations and community-based organizations (see Annex 19). Local
Authority councils are established for municipalities, towns and villages.
8.
However, the current situation in Namibia demonstrates that there is a gap between these
guiding policies and strategies and the economic, environmental and institutional reality in the
country: decentralization progress has been much slower than anticipated; poverty levels are still
very high (about 56 percent of the 1.83 million Namibians have been designated as poor or very
poor24); national economic growth is heavily dependent on one resource-based activity, the
mining industry, with minimal opportunities for creation of employment and benefits for the rest
of the economy and potentially negative environmental impacts; and the divide between rural
and urban, northern and southern regions, and rich and poor persists and is even growing.
Coastal zone: development patterns
Area
9.
The entire 1,500-km Namibian coast is a hyper-arid ecosystem, from the Kunene River
on the northern border to the Orange River on the southern border. The Namib Desert runs along
the whole length of the coast, extending beyond the Orange River into the northwestern corner of
South Africa – an area known as the Richtersveld – and beyond the Kunene River into the
southwestern corner of Angola. Much of the coast consists of sandy beaches with isolated
outcrops, although there are also significant lagoons, estuaries and riverbeds present on the coast.
24
Source: Draft CEM Namibia 2004.
43
Because the region, which is isolated between the ocean and the escarpment, is considered to be
a constant island of aridity surrounded by a sea of climatic change, it has remained a relatively
stable center for the evolution of desert species. Therefore, the Namibian coastal habitats,
together with the Succulent Karoo biome of the southern Namib Desert, hold significant and
unique biological and ecological diversity, including uniquely adapted plants and animals, rich
estuarine fauna and a high diversity of migratory wading and seabirds. Exceptional features of
the Namibian coast at the ecosystem level are mentioned in Annex 18.
Population
10.
The Namibian population is exceptionally isolated from its coast, compared to other
countries. There have been unusually few opportunities so far for access to and use of coastal
land and resources by residents of coastal regions. As development and settlement pressure is
exceptionally concentrated in and around these urban centers, the pressure and risk of coastal
squeeze on biodiversity conservation needs to be urgently addressed.
11.
Around 100,000 Namibians (roughly 6.5 percent of the population) live along the coast,
although, because reliable counts are difficult to make in informal settlements such as those in
Lüderitz, Walvis Bay, and Swakopmund, the figure is probably higher. The population is
significantly higher during the holiday season, as local, regional and international tourism
(mainly nature-based) on the coast is a major economic activity.25 Human settlement within the
four coastal regions is primarily confined to five main towns: Oranjemund and Lüderitz in the
Karas Region, and Walvis Bay, Swakopmund and Henties Bay in the Erongo Region.
12.
The Erongo region is, by far, the more accessible, with established road and rail links and
other infrastructure such as a harbor, and within easy reach of the capital city of Windhoek and
other urban coastal centers. Its capital, Walvis Bay, is the largest town in the coastal region and
has about 35 percent formal unemployment. With the current state of unemployment, and a
growth rate of about 6.5 percent per annum, increased pressure may be brought to bear on the
fishing industry and its resources as well as the broader environment.
Economic development
13.
The main sources for economic development in the country, in particular within the four
coastal regions (Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene), are all resource-based, including a rapidly
growing nature-based tourism industry26, an overall expanding extractive industry (oil and gas
exploration and off-shore mining of minerals, although diamond mining and processing is mostly
downscaling), and a strong commercial fishing industry with growing aquaculture. Farming or
other agricultural activity is almost precluded as a livelihood option, due to the hyper-arid
climate of the coastal desert. These economic activities and the wastes they produce have
25
Nationwide, Namibia receives more than 600,000 visitors per year, and the coastal zone is one of the top
destinations in the country. The tourism sector includes more than 2,200 formally recognized tourism businesses,
such as tour activities/travel operators, accommodations, culture and craft centers, car hiring services, restaurants
and banks.
26
Namibian Wildlife Resorts based in the coastal zone rank high among 18 primary tourism destinations: Cape
Cross 2nd, Namib Naukluft 3rd, Hardap 6th, West Coast 12th and Skeleton 13th.
44
cumulative implications for water supply and quality that can only be addressed through an
integrated water management approach. However, there is currently no integrated water
management system, nor any available assessment of the principal economic activities, in terms
of their socio-economic and environmental costs and benefits. This lack of sound economic and
environmental baseline data makes it difficult for national, regional and local government to
reach a mutual agreement on how to define a sustainable coastal zone development framework,
including the promotion of diversified livelihood options for coastal populations (see Annex 9).
Environmental pressure
14.
The Namibian coastal ecosystems are extremely fragile and can easily be disturbed by
minor human activities. The coast has been relatively inaccessible to date and shows
geographically very concentrated (relatively low in comparison to other countries) population
densities. However, increasing human pressures over the past several years highlight the urgent
need for sound coastal planning and management to ensure sustainable and optimal use of
coastal areas and their resources in the future. Biodiversity is regarded as one of the key coastal
resources, not only from a local perspective as the fastest growing industry, tourism, depends in
it, but also from a global point of view, as the Namib Desert has many unique species and its
southern part has more diversity than any other desert in the world (see Annex 18).
15.
A significant part of the coastline has been designated as protected area, mainly before
Independence, although levels of protection have been uneven, and in some areas clearly
insufficient. These designations have meant that there is an unusually high level of nationalized
control and an unusually low level of regional and local authority involvement in coastal land
management.
16.
The slow decentralization process has further complicated the situation, and regional and
local authorities27 currently operate without a clear legal framework and with overlapping
mandates and limited funds. Regional Councils (RCs), local authorities (LAs) and line
ministries’ field staff lack the human, technical and financial capacity to undertake their duties as
currently defined (see Annex 19).
17.
Increasing human activities may lead to unprecedented migration to the coast in the near
future, bringing with it uncontrolled urban development that can result in overuse and pollution
of freshwater resources, an increase in industrial coastal and marine pollution, degradation of
water regimes for coastal wetlands, and other land and water degradation.28 Among the potential
threats are mining of diamonds and other minerals, development of gas fields, mariculture,
various other types of marine cultivation, fishing, resettlement, industrialization, and tourism
activities (such as off-road driving that may destroy lichen fields) (see Annex 18 for more
information on threats and root causes). These trends and activities, if allowed to remain
unchecked and unplanned, will result in long-term loss of biodiversity, ecological functioning
and, contrary to the national poverty eradication objectives, a reduction of the economic potential
of the coast itself. The underlying cause that exacerbates all of the predominant threats is the lack
27
The main local authorities/government in the coast are Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Henties Bay and Lüderitz.
There are also many smaller municipalities, “autonomous” villages and settlements.
28
MAWRD estimates that Namibia’s internal water resources will be exhausted by 2020.
45
of integrated conservation and development planning, coupled with poor management of
resources in the face of increased pressures.
18.
There is generally insufficient information available about the environmental and
economic situation of the Namib coast and the four administrative coastal regions and their
contribution to national and regional development. This lack of information has resulted in the
absence of a common vision for all stakeholders about the sustainable use of biodiversity and
coastal zone resources. The vertical and horizontal interface between local and regional, and
regional and national decision-making, as well as coordination between regions, is currently
weak or non-existent. In particular, the interface between the regional and local levels lacks
clarity; this is a critical issue to be addressed by the Project, because of the rapid growth of
coastal towns, the autonomy of the urban growth poles and their proximity to biodiversity
hotspots.
19.
The RCs now have an institutional mandate to spearhead socio-economic planning at the
regional and, to a certain extent, local levels. However, there is not yet any explicit definition of
responsibilities for environmental management. It should be further noted that legislation
provides for delegation of specific environmental tasks (i.e. related to coastal zone management)
to LAs, if appropriate. Thus, the line ministries (mainly MET in coordination with other sector
ministries involved) need to give the RCs and LAs clear mandates and mechanisms to develop
and implement sustainable principles for development and biodiversity conservation, based on
Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).29
Environmental assets, status and values (see Annex 18 for detailed analysis)
20.
The Namibian coast’s environmental resources are key features in the economic and
social value of the coast. Please refer to Annex 18 on biodiversity assets, threats and root causes
for biodiversity loss on the coast.
III. Government Strategy Toward Sustainable Development of the Coast
21.
The Project is part of the Government of Namibia's efforts to implement its NBSAP and
to address local, regional, national and global environmental priorities. NACOMA will make a
major contribution to implementing these objectives and defined activities, through support for
currently under-protected key biodiversity hotspots, adequate input into the process of zoning,
development of guidelines and environmental assessment of proposed aquaculture developments,
and inclusion of relevant NBSAP components into the RDPs (see Annex 4).
22.
The Project also follows Namibia’s Action Plan to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD),
as submitted to the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD). Targeted investments, capacity
building and enhancement of decentralization are regarded as key elements for halting land
degradation. The MET plans to merge the Biodiversity and Desertification Programs, in order to
foster synergies and focus on integrated approaches for natural resource management, bio-trade
and desert research. MET is supporting a capacity-building program related to NAPCOD and
In the context of the NACOMA Project, ICZM is understood as fully compatible with CBD’s definition and
principles of Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management (IMCAM), see para. 34.
29
46
NBSAP for key stakeholders, and ICZM is expected to be included among the identified priority
themes. A few other complementary donor-funded projects and programs aim to conserve
coastal and marine biodiversity in and outside biodiversity hotspots and conservation areas, and
to strengthen capacity to accelerate and improve the decentralization process (see Annex 2).
The following four areas present key gaps, for which the Government seeks support:
(i)
Relevant policies, strategies and regulatory framework
23.
Namibia already has a range of sectoral policies and strategies that deal with natural
resource management, biodiversity and other coast-related matters. However, planning,
implementation and assessment of coastal zone issues is currently fragmented and under the
authority of several line ministries, including the MET, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine
Resources (MFMR), the Ministry of Regional and Local Government Housing (MRLGH), the
Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), the Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
(MLRR), the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development (MAWRD) and the
Ministry of Water, Transport and Communication (MWTC). The mainstreaming of cross-cutting
issues (such as biodiversity conservation) into these sectoral policies, strategies and
implementation activities at the national, regional and local levels – as proposed and planned
under the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and other strategies – is still
a distant goal.
24.
The National Biodiversity Strategy, along with the associated 10-year Strategic Action
Plan (2001–2010), has as its overall objective to “Strengthen the implementation of the
Constitution of Namibia (Article 95L) by adopting measures to improve the protection of coastal
and marine ecosystems, biological diversity and essential ecological processes, and to improve
knowledge, awareness, and the sustainability of resource use.” A separate strategic aim is to
strengthen ICZM. Further priority actions relate to reducing use impacts, creating Marine
Protected Areas, supporting pollution control, aquaculture and awareness raising. 30 However,
implementation of these strategies and action plan has been limited and slow.
25.
In addition, some of the relevant coastal zone sectoral ministries, such as MME, have not
yet even declared their intention to decentralize, while MFMR is considering the decentralization
only of certain activities (e.g. related to aquaculture).
(ii) Environmental legislation
26.
There is no modern legislation in force on integrated water management, biodiversity
conservation/protected area management or environmental aspects of mining, although draft
laws are under consideration. A major long-awaited piece of legislation, the draft Environmental
30
NBSAP CZM relevant findings are included in: Action Plan for Biodiversity Conservation Priorities (Chapter 1),
Action Plan for Sustainable Wetland Management (Chapter 5), Action Plan for Sustainable Coastal and Marine
Ecosystem Management (Chapter 6), Action Plan for Integrated Planning for Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Management (Chapter 7) and Action Plan for Capacity Building for Biodiversity Management in
Support of Sustainable Development (Chapter 9).
47
Management and Assessment Bill (EMB), would incorporate Environmental Impact Assessment
procedures into Namibian law. However, it is not clear how far the EMB’s provisions would
apply to sectoral coastal projects that could threaten Namibia’s coastal integrity, and there is no
indication of whether the EMB will provide for strategic environmental assessment of relevant
policies and plans in line with international best practices (e.g. under the Convention on
Biological Diversity – CBD).
Other key issues to examine in the GRN’s relevant draft legislation include:

Planning and decision-making for potentially damaging activities within protected areas
(MET/MME/MWTC/MFMR/MLRR);

Conservation of biodiversity outside formally designated areas (e.g. at the regional
landscape scale), use of ecological corridors and buffer zones (MET/MAWRD);

Possibility of mixed terrestrial/marine protected areas (MET/MFMR);

Transboundary cooperation on area and species management (MET); and

Protection of threatened and endangered marine species (MET/MFMR).
27.
NACOMA will support a legal and policy review and potential adjustments to and
harmonization of legislation through Component 1 (see section B and Annex 4).
(iii) Decentralization progress
28.
Despite the slow progress to date, the government continues to officially reconfirm its
commitment to advancing its decentralization agenda, with the ultimate goal of devolution.
Positive results over the past year have included: (i) Clarification of the development and
planning mandates of RCs and inclusion of those critical functions in the RDPs; (ii) Revision of
the Regional Council Organization Structure to accommodate functions to be decentralized; and
(iii) Preparation of two donor-funded decentralization support projects. Shortfalls in the
decentralization process include the fact that only a few planning officers have been recruited
and Line Ministry Action Plans pertaining to the decentralized functions of the relevant
Ministries still have to be developed and implemented (e.g. MET). Therefore, it is not surprising
that environmental concerns are currently poorly incorporated in the RDPs and that
environmental planning and management (through community-based natural resource
management (CBNRM) and community-based forestry) are proposed but in practice still absent,
in spite of the burning need and often expressed desire to take an integrated conservation and
development approach to regional planning.
29.
It is precisely for this reason that the Government of Namibia strongly supports the
unique and timely contribution of NACOMA to help empower previously disadvantaged
Namibians and facilitate the decentralization of natural resource management and biodiversity
conservation through a comprehensive coastal management policy process (to provide for the
transition from national to regional and local planning and management), and the concurrent
institutional and capacity building of the regional and local government machinery, its partners
in civil society and other associated players (see Annex 19).
(iv) Institutional framework for ICZM
48
30.
Starting from a small ICZM project in the Erongo Region (see Annex 2), the four coastal
RCs established an Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC) 31 to develop a
common approach toward sustainable development of the coastal zone, share lessons learned and
seek inter-regional synergies. The ICZMC builds on a governance structure of National Council,
Regional Council, local authorities and Council of Traditional Leaders. It co-exists with other
structures for cooperative management and sustainable utilization of shared border rivers. 32 At
sea, the BCLME Programme is at present investigating the need for and feasibility of a BCLME
sub-regional commission, which could provide for synergetic linkages to the ICZMC (see Annex
6).
31.
However, the current ICZMC lacks technical and financial capacity and a clear political
and functional mandate. NACOMA will strengthen this entity substantially through a strong
enabling environment, targeted capacity building and targeted membership (through Components
1 and 2), in order to create a sustainable and well-connected coastal zone management institution
to spearhead conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
32.
A common vision together with a new Coastal Zone Management Policy Framework and
strengthened ICZMC will provide a basis to ensure policy consistency along the coastal
ecosystem. This is essential for activities with potentially long-distance impacts (e.g.
maintenance of coastal fisheries nursery and spawning areas, choice of fish stock for
aquaculture, extraction and mining projects) that could affect erosion and soil deposition
regimes.
31
The ICZMC currently consists of the four regional governors, four national councilors and the four Chief
Executive Officers. Additionally, the ICZMC includes line ministry officials from MET, MRLGH, MME and
MFMR.
32
Permanent Joint Technical Commission on the Kunene River (Namibia-Angola 1990) and Permanent Water
Commission on the Orange River (Namibia-South Africa 1992).
49
Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank and/or other Agencies
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Sector Issue Addressed
Project
Status
Latest Supervision (PSR)
Ratings
Implement.
Progress
(IP)
Dev. Objective
(DO)
ICEMA Integrated Community-Based
Ecosystem Management Project,
effective on November 17, 2004
Human Capital and Knowledge
Development Program, under
preparation
Public Private Partnership Against
HIV/AIDS; has been approved by the
IDF committee in December 2004
S
S
-
-
-
-
Expected MSP Promoting
Environmental Sustainability through
Improved Land Use Planning
(PESILUP) under the Country Pilot
Partnership for Sustainable Land
Management with a project brief
expected in May/June 2005
Sustainable land
ESW under preparation, draft report
management practices
expected in May 2005
Decentralization support Sub-National Government Project
to local governments
under preparation
Land reform support
ESW land reform at preparation stage
Other Agencies
Decentralization
Finnish: launched in September 2004
Decentralization
French: launched in October 2004
including IT support
Rural
EC: support for RPSF implementation
Development/poverty
launched in September 2004
reduction
Sustainable Tourism
EC Namibian Tourism Development
Project under implementation
National Parks
UNDP/GEF Strengthening the System
management
of National Protected Areas Project,
PDF-B under implementation
Transboundary marine
UNDP/GEF Benguela Current Large
ecosystem conservation Marine Ecosystem BCLME
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
World Bank / IBRD
CBNRM
Education
HIV/AIDS
Enhanced land use
planning
50
Decentralization and
local sustainable
environmental
management
Biodiversity and Land
Degradation
Programme, FP under implementation
(phase 2 is proposed)
DANIDA/Danced Follow-up Project
on LA 21
GTZ Capacity-support to MET for
implementation of NBSAP and LD
issues
IP/DO Ratings: HS (Highly Satisfactory), S (Satisfactory), U (Unsatisfactory), HU (Highly
Unsatisfactory)
Specific Information about Selected Interventions and their Linkages to NACOMA
Institutional support and environmental management projects
1.
The Walvis Bay Local Agenda 21 Project financed by DANIDA/DANCED from 2001
to 2004, implemented by the Municipality of Walvis Bay (Environmental Management Section),
aimed at achieving a balance between managing and protecting Walvis Bay's natural and human
environment and promoting economic and social development in a sustainable manner. The
Project has successfully developed a draft integrated environmental policy incorporating policy
directions following LA21 principles, and has developed an action plan for environmentally
sustainable coastal zone management.
2.
The follow-up Project’s objective is defined as follows: ‘Recognising the LA21
principles, local environmental policies and strategies have been introduced to and adopted by
co-operating Local Authorities throughout Namibia.’ This involves:
 Managing and improving the Local Authority's own environmental performance
 Integrating sustainable development aims into the Local Authority's policies and
activities
 Awareness-raising and education
 Consulting and involving the general public
 Partnerships
 Measuring, monitoring and reporting on progress towards sustainability
Capacity building focuses on real-life strategic options, examples of which include:
 Local Energy Plans - to reduce non-renewable energy consumption in the area, to
consider the 'whole life' energy consequences of housing, transport, industry and
recreation in the community
 Local Biodiversity Action Plans - To identify significant species and habitats, to conserve
species and habitats of more than local importance, and to inform and involve the local
community in biodiversity work, etc.
The NACOMA Project will build on the achievements of these two Projects and assist other LA
(e.g. Lüderitz) to replicate the successful lessons (e.g. multi-stakeholder planning, participation
51
and role of MET’s regional office, private sector and traditional authorities) if applicable through
targeted capacity building under its component 2.
3.
The Finnida financed Support to Decentralisation Process Project, has the overall
objective to improve public service delivery and governance at regional and local levels. The
Project purpose is defined as follows: ‘The line Ministries involved in the decentralisation
process in Namibia, as well as the thirteen Regional Councils, have the structures, capacity and
will to implement the decentralisation process through a strengthened Directorate for
Decentralisation Coordination.’ It addresses directly the planning, decision-making and
implementation of the powers and functions that are to be decentralized according to the national
policies and strategies. It is implemented through the Directorate of Decentralisation
Coordination (DDC) of the Ministry of MRLGH. The Project is designed to achieve four results:
1. The Directorate for Decentralisation Coordination has the capacity to drive and
coordinate the decentralisation process in Namibia by providing management direction,
coordination, consulting, training and research
2. Ministerial Action Plans for Decentralisation are prepared for each function to be
delegated in accordance with the provisions of the Guidelines prepared by the Interministerial Task Forces
3. Regional Decentralisation Implementation Plans are prepared for each region
4. The Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provisions is supported to serve as
a conduit for pooled financing for regional development and equity in Namibia
The Project is implemented in three consecutive phases. It has started with a six-month planning
phase, during which the DDC and the line Ministries and Regional Councils prepare and agree
on a detailed work plan to prepare their respective Decentralisation Action Plans. The second
phase of the Project would effectively consist of the preparation of the Decentralisation Action
Plans with support from the Project as identified during the planning phase and approved by the
Project Supervisory Board. At the end of the second phase, there would be a mid-term review of
the Project to assess 1) the progress made thus far in relation of the Project objectives, 2)
readiness of the Trust Fund to serve as a conduit for pooled financing and 3) overall political
environment and its conduciveness to decentralisation in Namibia.
The NACOMA Project will contribute to the decentralization process by enhancing in particular
MET’s efforts to pilot delegation of coastal biodiversity management issues to the regional and
local governments; by strengthening line ministries, regional and local governments with
targeted capacity-building related to coastal zone management and mainstreaming biodiversity
into sectoral development planning and by assessing the role and mandate of coastal
stakeholders.
4.
The French Support to Decentralization Process (launched in October 2004 – 2007)
aims to strengthen development planning capacities for regional councils and line ministries and
to put in place operational systems, methods and tools to support development plan processes
and guarantee implication of all stakeholders. Its four components deal with development
planning capacities, methods, tools at national and regional level; elaboration, implementation
and follow-up of RDPs; elaboration and implementation of communication and development
plan IT tools; and creation and assessment of systems to develop democracy and participation
from grass-root level to regional level.
52
The NACOMA Project will build on these efforts whenever relevant for mainstreaming
biodiversity into coastal zone management and coordinate with the French project in particular
the set-up of the IT systems in RCs to match requirements for GIS.
5.
The Namibia Sub-national Government Development Programme, assisted by the
World Bank under a PHRD Grant from the Government of Japan, will finance sectoral analyses
at Local Authority level to identify the key constraints and appropriate modalities for the
delivery of services, particularly those services for which sub-national governments will assume
responsibility as a result of decentralisation. Specifically, the Project focuses on:
1. Inter-governmental Fiscal Relations: delineation of the fiscal and financial implications
for local authorities of the decentralisation program, including analyses of expenditure
assignments, existing and potential revenue sources, and fiscal gaps.
2. Local Authorities Sector Institutional and Capacity Building: identification of
requirements for capacity building at the sub-national and national Government levels to
enable sustainable delivery of local services and infrastructure within the decentralised
framework.
3. Municipal Infrastructure Investment Needs and Policy Options: analysis of the
investment needs of local governments, focusing upon options for delivery of sustainable
services and infrastructure, particularly to lower income populations.
The NACOMA Project has identified local governments as important players in coastal zone
management and will strengthen the local – regional relation through multiple-stakeholder
workshops and training events under component 2; participatory processes to develop coastal
profiles; joint efforts to monitor and assess the status of coastal biodiversity and its relevance for
sustainable development and through the implementation of the communication action plan.
Further, NACOMA will strongly support mutual learning processes among coastal
municipalities (part of the Project’s replication plan).
6.
The UNDP/GEF National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project aimed to
examine Namibia’s capacity to implement the three UN Conventions (UNCBD, UNCCD and
UNFCCC), and to identify capacity constraints and capacity building opportunities for the
purpose of sustainable development and environmental management. The Project also aimed to
examine crosscutting issues and synergies between the three Conventions, taking into
consideration the demands of the decentralization process in terms of Namibia’s Decentralization
Policy and the threats posed by the HIV/AIDS pandemic to national development. Local/regional
level capacity assessments were carried out in 2004 in three selected areas namely: North
National (Oshikoto Region), Coastal (Erongo Region), and Southern (Hardap Region).
General findings were: (i) those institutions with the least capacity currently are the Regional
Council and Traditional Authorities. The capacities that have been identified as most needed are
finances, skills and knowledge on environmental issues. Threats and limitations that have been
identified with regard to environmental management were HIV/AIDS, lack of legislation and
inadequate decentralization processes; (ii) one of the biggest challenges highlighted was lack of
environmental information and knowledge. Because of poor knowledge of environmental issues,
many of the institutions do not have environmental divisions or personnel (human resources)
53
dealing with these environmental challenges. The assessment concluded with the following
recommendations:




Support delegation of powers (from for example MRLGH & MET) to the Regional
Councils’ office in terms of environmental issues so that it can reach the regional and
local levels and encourage participation of regional ministry departments and
representatives in collaborative efforts directed toward the environment and sustainable
development. While full decentralization may not occur for some while, participation by
ministry stakeholders can be encouraged, and would be enhanced by sanctioning from
head offices. Further, specific provisions in national Project proposals for Project to be
carried out at regional level will decentralize activities even if formal decentralization is
slow. Support regional offices with environmental expertise, skills and understanding
Increase the capacity of regions through decentralization regarding environmental
management issues. Change organizational structure to give environmental management
a higher profile to enhance long-term sustainability of development
Increase financial base
Support creation of awareness, understanding and sharing of information concerning
crosscutting environmental issues and sustainable development supported by enhanced
skills. Training in environmental management at all levels. Support rural access to
information by distance learning networks and information nodes
Thus, the NACOMA Project objectives and design (in particular through its component 1 and
2) have been built on the draft result of the NCSA, and can be seen as a direct contribution to
address the identified capacity needs at national, regional and local level. It is expected to
generate a broad range of lessons and approaches to be replicated with support from other
initiatives in the rest of the country.
7.
The UNDP/GEF programme BCLME, which started in 2002, is a joint initiative by the
governments of Angola, Namibia, and South Africa to manage and utilize the resources of the
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem in a sustainable and integrated manner. It aims at
coordinating actions in the participating countries to ensure that the entire marine ecosystem is
managed as a whole across the national boundaries. The transboundary issues include the
migration of fish resources across national boundaries, the introduction of alien fish species from
ballast water of ships, and pollutants that can affect several nations through advection by wind or
currents from the waters of one country to another. So far, the programme has carried out a
transboundary diagnostic analysis and developed a strategic action program, with the aim of
developing policy action programs within mining and drilling activities, management of
pollution, capacity strengthening and maintenance of ecosystem health and protection of marine
biological diversity.
The linkage to the BCLME Programme is one of the key partnerships for the NACOMA Project
to be fully defined by time of appraisal. Main actions are to (i) clarify the mandate and roles of
MET and MFMR, secure agreement on jurisdictional boundaries (e.g. definition of coastal zone)
and make significant progress towards the establishment of MPAs (under component 1), (ii)
ensure use of information and lessons learned from BCLME programme in particular related to
existing M&E mechanism, thus avoiding duplication (under component 2), and (iii) promote the
54
development of a long-term integrated institutional framework for coastal and marine
management, which will ensure consistency with the mandate and scope of the proposed
Benguela Current Commission (BCC) and its Namibian national counterpart entity. Thus, the
NACOMA Project fits very well as a compliment at the national level to the BCLME
programme, which is geographically focused mostly on the high water mark (HWM) seawards.
Together, these initiatives can strengthen and expand conservation networks linked to all levels
of governments, share information resources and develop common information networks.
NACOMA can contribute significantly to specific issues being addressed by BCLME
programme that are of specific importance to Namibia. These include effects of mining activities
on marine and coastal ecosystems, and coastal zone management issues, especially on high – low
water mark transect. Remedial regional actions recommended by the BCLME programme, can
be integrated into the NACOMA Project for Namibia. Once BCLME programme II is approved,
it can use NACOMA as a pilot Project in Namibia to lead the realization of its MPA’s regional
focus. Close coordination between the BCLME programme and NACOMA during Project
preparation and implementation will ensure a coherent ecosystem management on the larger ecoregional scale, specifically from the high sea to the Namib coast to interior communal lands.
Throughout the preparation process, close coordination between BCLME programme and the
NACOMA Project has been ensured at national as well as at GEF implementing agency level.
Once NACOMA is under implementation, its Steering Committee will include representatives
from the three line ministries engaged in the BCLME programme (MFMR, MME, MET).
8.
BENEFIT, which started in 1999, is a 10 year SADC marine research science and
training programme involving the three member states of Angola, Namibia (NatMIRC) and
South Africa, aiming at promoting the optimal and sustainable utilisation of Benguela
ecosystem's living resource. The intention of the programme is to contribute to the more
effective management of the Benguela's resources, promote job creation and contribute towards
food security of the region. The activities include research into the understanding of the
fluctuation in the marine living resources and which environmental factors influence these
fluctuations, developing human capacity and infrastructure for marine science and technology,
and providing system-wide data and information for management. Some activities of BENEFIT
could have direct bearing on NACOMA, such as the harmonization of policies (e.g. related to
mining leases), biodiversity status (e.g. providing information on potential sites for MPA) and
sensitivity mapping of the whole coast.
Being a research-orientated program, BENEFIT could compliment greatly the NACOMA
Project in carrying out or coordinate specific research based requirements on the marine
environment of the coastal zone. Specific areas of linkages between the two initiatives are
MPA’s, Islands, estuaries on Kunene and Orange rivers mouths and high – low water mark
transect. In these areas, BENEFIT could take the lead as source of required scientific information
and advice (e.g. key member of the Scientific Group on ICZM), as well as to provide necessary
capacity, training, on-job training and technical expertise to the environmental planners in
regional councils and line ministries.
55
9.
The Bank/GEF Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA)
Project, launched in November 2004, aims to scale-up community-based ecosystem management
on communal conservancies’ lands in Namibia for the benefit of rural people, and sustainable
use of natural resources. The five-year project will fund ecosystem-based income generating
activities in selected conservancies, enhance biodiversity and ecosystem processes that support
sustainable benefits to local communities, and provide targeted support to the MET for the
implementation of the National CBNRM program and policies over the long term.
The NACOMA Project will add to ICEMA’s activities by providing additional capacity to the
MET for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use, including mainstreaming and delegation
of coastal biodiversity management into development planning and management. Additionally,
as some of the targeted conservancies are in the jurisdiction area of coastal RCs but well in land,
capacity built and awareness raised in the regional and local levels under NACOMA, will also
contribute to the successful implementation of ICEMA in these conservancies. Both projects
support the same strategic approach to ecosystem management of empowerment of sub-national
entities for ecosystem management and BD conservation.
Protected areas and biodiversity conservation projects
10.
The UNDP/GEF Strengthening the System of National Protected Areas Project
(NPA) would strengthen Namibia's main protected areas, focusing on the management of the
national PA network and concentrating on terrestrial ecosystems. During Phase 1, the NPA
project will focus on:
1) Improving the policy and legal framework, institutional capacity and mechanisms concerning
the protected areas’ management and financing.
2) Supporting current initiatives of the MET concerning the improvement of planning,
management and tourism development of four major parks (Namib Naukluft, Etosha, Bwabwata
and the Ai-Ais/Richtersveld Transfrontier Park), and the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet
National Park.
3) Identification of gaps concerning under-representation in the national network of protected
areas.
In phase 2, it will focus on consolidation and expansion of the PAs network and the
establishment long term financing mechanisms for the PA system in Namibia.
The NACOMA Project will support coastal biodiversity hotspots (including new MPA sites),
which is complementing the PA Project’s support for park management plans. The NACOMA
Project will further support capacity building, in particular for RCs, LAs and line ministries for
integrated coastal management planning and participatory approaches for mainstreaming and
involvement of sector stakeholder and local communities. This support will complement the
activities of the PA Project in these sites, both entered the pipeline. Close coordination and
collaboration between NACOMA and the NPA Project started during NACOMA’s preparation
phase and will continue through participation of NPA representatives in the SC, specific
workshops, sharing of progress reports and coordination of activities related to management
plans, sustainable financing, legal framework, training, knowledge management and
establishment of park management monitoring database.
56
11.
DLIST: The regional pilot initiative “Distance Learning Information Sharing Tool”
(DLIST), funded by WB/GEF, was highly successful in enhancing knowledge about
environmental issues under the International Waters Focal Area. A follow-up GEF MSP
proposal the “Regional Africa DLIST for the Benguela Sea Board” is currently under
preparation. DLIST Benguela has become a recognized distance learning and informationsharing tool dedicated to coastal players in Angola, Namibia and South Africa that can enhance
the effectiveness of the NACOMA Project. It is intended to provide a tool for linking the
scientific work in the BCLME area with the end users of management information and to fill
geographic gaps in South Africa, Namibia and to include Angola. In addition, multi-resource
centers will be established with the funds for poverty-related activities.
Linkages to the NACOMA Project are multi-fold: NACOMA will rely heavily on
communication and information sharing mechanisms in developing a coastal policy for Namibia,
and DLIST is ideally positioned to fulfill this role. DLIST also provides an interface between
various programs targeting the coastal areas and will thereby form useful links between coastal
communities and programs that focus on biodiversity conservation such as NACOMA. DLIST
will further make an important contribution to capacity building and institutional strengthening one of the objectives of NACOMA - by providing training to NACOMA players. In fact,
regional planners have been enthusiastic participants in the DLIST pilot, both in the distance
learning component and the discussion forums.
12.
SKEP: Succulent Karoo Ecosystem Plan: Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF)
signed an agreement with Conservation International, South Africa to undertake preparation
activities for the development of an Ecosystem Profile for the Succulent Karoo Hotspot. SKEP is
a process to develop an overarching framework for biodiversity conservation in the context of
sustainable development for the Succulent Karoo Biome. To achieve this mission, SKEP consists
of four thematic components guiding the process: biological, socio-political, economic and legalinstitutional. The SKEP planning domain was divided into four sub-regions: Namibia/Gariep,
Namaqualand, Hantam/Tanqua/Roggeveld and Southern Karoo. Its overarching plan for
biodiversity conservation in the Succulent Karoo Biome aims to:
i) Provide a hierarchy of priority actions to guide conservation efforts and donor investment in
the biome
ii) Build human resources capacity to implement the plan by including training and mentorship
activities as part of the planning process
iii) Generate the institutional and government support required to ensure its effective
implementation
13.
The sub-regional UNDP/GEF programme BCLME (see above for details).
14.
The sub-regional multi-donor BENEFIT programme (see above for details).
57
Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
A. Results Framework
PDO / PGO
Outcome Indicators
PD0/PGO: Conservation, sustainable use and
mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and
marine ecosystems in Namibia strengthened
1. X km2 and number of terrestrial and marine 33
biodiversity hotspots under effective management as
defined by NAMETT34 by year 5 compared with
baseline situation.
Use of Outcome Information
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Verify adequacy of included areas
to comply with biodiversity objectives.
1. Yr. 2 – 5: If negative changes occur, identify
causes and take remedial actions.
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Annual up-date of State of
Environment Report and NBSAP.
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Annual progress reports of use of
site-level (PAs and MPAs) management
effectiveness tracking tool (NAMETT35) and
data transfer to Coastal Biodiversity M&E
mechanisms.
2. Flow of economic benefits from activities linked to
ecosystem and biodiversity management on the coast has
increased by year 5 compared with baseline situation.
2. Yr. 2 – 5: Development of resource-based
statistics (e.g. employment of local population,
locally operated commercial tours) for LA and
RC development planning.
3. Biodiversity related aspects are incorporated into all
up-coming sector policies (tourism, fisheries, mining and
urban development) at national, regional and local levels,
as identified in the White Paper, by year 5.
3. Yr. 1 – 5: Support to development of DAP of
targeted line ministries (MET, MFMR, MWTC).
3. Yr. 2 – 5: Support to local Agenda 21 and
other local environmental management plans
In the project context, marine hotspots are meant to be MPAs: MPAs are here defined based on IUCN’s definition (Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General
Assembly, 1988, reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46, 1994): “Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.”
34
“Effective management” would be assessed through use of the Namibian adapted WWF/WB PA tracking tool (NAMETT), a score card for PAs and MPAs.
35
NAMETT has been developed by MET’s NPA Project under preparation and most of the National Protected Areas have undergone the NAMETT analysis.
NAMETT will be used as one of the key indicators under NPA Project including mid-term and end of the project assessments.
33
58
(Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Lüderitz).
Intermediate Results
One per Component
Component One:
1. Policy and legal framework relevant to coastal
zone management clarified and, following a
prioritization process, harmonized.
Results Indicators for Each Component
1. A formal definition of the coastal zone for policy and
legislative purposes drafted and agreed upon by
identified stakeholders by end of year 1.
1. Legislation relevant to coastal zone management
reviewed by end of year 1.
1. At the end of year 2 a draft list of proposals for
amended or new legislation is available and prioritized
(e.g. replacement of Sea Shore Ordinance, drafting of
new Coastal Zone Management Act).
3. Yr. 2 – 5: Review of sector policies and
strategies as well as progress reporting of NDP 3
implementation.
Use of Results Monitoring
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Input into finalization of draft
legislation relevant to NAMCOP.
1. Yr. 3 – 5: Development of Coastal Zone
Management Act and other proposed priority
legislation.
1. Yr. 2: Review of financial options to increase
RC and LA budget.
1. By end of year 5, all recommendations for proposed
legal amendments published.
2. Roles and mandates of line ministries, RCs
and LAs clarified with regard to conservation and
sustainable use of coastal biodiversity.
2. Formal approval of revised ICZMC (mandate,
members) by year 3.
2. Yr. 1 – 2: Decision on lead agency for ICZM
(ICZMC) based on institutional review, political
commitment and capacity-building results.
Yr. 4 and 5: Assessment of ICZMC’s
performance related to NACOWP priorities and
responsibilities described.
2. 80 % of identified key stakeholders share same
understanding of roles and mandates pertaining policy
making and ICZM related legislation by the end of year
3.
2. Yr. 3 – 5: Identify any constraints and adjust
policy and training strategy (under component 1
and 2) accordingly.
2. Yr 2: Training needs assessment (under
component 2) builds on institutional mandates
clarified and addresses gaps in current
institutional and staff profiles and
knowledge/skills.
59
2. Yr. 2: Review and adjustment of job
description for pilot environmental planners at
RC level.
3. A collaborative vision for the conservation and
sustainable use of the Namib coast developed and
integrated into an ICZM policy framework, the
Namibia Coastal Management White Paper.
3. The vision process successfully finalized through
multi-stakeholder participation in a series of workshops
and consultations resulting in an agreed coastal vision by
end of year 2.
3. Green Paper on conservation and sustainable
development of the Namib Coast drafted by end of year
3.
3. The White Paper (NACOWP), based on further input
and following further consultations, will be published
and signed by at least MET, MFMR, MME, MRLGH by
year 5.
3. Yr. 5: Regional Councils, local authorities and
line ministries are enabled to use NACOWP as
framework to mainstream coastal biodiversity
into sectoral and local/regional dialogue and
decision-making processes (RDCC, RDPs, NDP
3 preparation, Vision 2030, and sectoral policies
and strategies).
3. Yr. 3 – 5: Lessons learned will feed back into
development of draft White Paper.
3. Yr. 5: NACOWP is consulted for all coastal
zone planning and management actions by local,
regional and national governments.
3. Line ministries (MET, MME, MFMR, MAWRD,
MWTC) budget allocation for ICZM related issues
increased by 10 % by year 5 compared to baseline
situation.
4. Regional coastal information available and
used in local and regional decision-making
processes.
4. Regional coastal profiles, as defined by key
stakeholders, are in place in the four regions at the end of
year 2 and reviewed and updated as necessary at the end
of years 3, 4 and 5.
4. Consultative process and stakeholder meetings
(workshops to develop regional coastal profiles)
will improve communication channels and
coordination at all levels.
Component Two:
1. Strengthened capacity and resources of RCs,
LA, MET, MME, MAWRD, MFMR and
MWTC allow for functional and strategic
coast-relevant planning and decision-making
process related to biodiversity conservation
and mainstreaming as documented in up-dated
1. 60 % of key stakeholders (Regional Councils, LA,
MET, MME, MAWRD, MWTC, MFMR (including
regional offices of line ministries) and other ICZMC
members) are trained in ICZM, GIS and mapping,
monitoring and evaluation, participatory approaches,
communication and negotiation skills, EIA and SEA by
1. Yr. 2 -4: Review of adequacy of training
program (content, tools and trainers and trainees)
to support effective management of hotspots
through surveys.
60
RDPs, NDPs
decisions.
and
RDCCs
investment
end of year 5 in comparison to a baseline skills audit.
2.Targeted training to RCs facilitates MET’s
mainstreaming and delegation of responsibilities
for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use
in and outside protected areas in two out of four
coastal regions.
2. Two out of four coastal regions have well-defined jobdescriptions and procedures for transfer of
responsibilities from MET to Regional Environmental
Development Planners in place by year 4.
2. The ICZMC has been strengthened and is fully
operational.
2. At the end of year 3, training provided to key
members of the expanded ICZMC, leads to satisfactorily
implementation of the ICZMC mandate identified under
the institutional review of component 1.
3. A coastal and marine biodiversity M&E
mechanism is defined, agreed to by ICZMC
members and other stakeholders (e.g. MET,
MFMR) and fully operational.
3. At the end of year 2, the most cost-effective,
appropriate and accessible option to channel coastal and
marine biodiversity data to policy and decisions-makers
as well as other stakeholders has been selected and
agreed upon by the ICZMC.
3. Yr. 3 – 5: Linkages with identified other
regional, local and national coastal and marine
biodiversity systems will be assessed to avoid
overlaps and duplications and enhance sharing of
information..
3. Coastal and marine biodiversity M&E related data is
systematically collected, stored, up-dated and made
accessible to stakeholders by end of year 3.
3. Yr. 4 – 5: National coastal and marine
biodiversity m&e system provides data and input
for up-date NBSAP and State of Environment
Report as well as Vision 2030 progress reports.
4. A knowledge management action plan, including
communication strategy content, tools and channels, is
developed by end of year 1 and under implementation by
year 2.
4. Yr. 4 – 5: Knowledge management system
will be reviewed and used to disseminate
NACOMA’s lessons learned and implement
replication strategy.
4. ICZMC, through its Secretariat, has full responsibility
and capacity to maintain KM system by year 4, in line
with NACOWP objectives.
4. Yr. 2 - 5: Assessment of quality and scope of
targeted investments proposals and
implementation.
4. A knowledge management system, to support
ICZM and mainstreaming of coastal and marine
biodiversity into development planning and
management is in place and utilized by the three
main target groups.
2. Yr. 4 and 5: Regional Councils organizational
structure further clarified and staffed
accordingly.
2. Yr. 4 – 5: Review ICZMC’s capacity to
become the lead entity for ICZM in Namibia.
4. 80% of relevant Regional Council staff, MET
regional offices' staff, ICZMC members, line ministries
focal points, Local Authorities, CBOs and the private
sector make use of communication tools (newsletter,
61
web-page, thematic brochures, meetings etc.) by end of
year 5.
4. Awareness about the importance of coastal zone
resources and ICZM among the three key target groups
and local communities increased by 70 % compared to
baseline survey (and using results from NCSA and
MET’s Biodiversity Training Assessment) by year 5.
Component Three:
1. Increased network of coastal and marine
conservation areas under effective management
as defined by NAMETT and integrated into
regional and local development planning.
1. 75 % of management plans for identified 11 terrestrial
and 3 marine (MPA) hotspots reviewed, revised or
developed through highly participatory approaches, in
complementarity with other initiatives36 , and in line with
local and regional development plans by end of year 5.
1. Yr. 1 – 5: Review of management plans and
up-date in line with capacity-building program
under component 2 (on the job training).
1. Creation of Walvis Bay Nature Reserve by year 2.
1. MET and MFMR reaching agreement on the basic
approach for creation of MPAs (including location,
numbers, funding and jurisdiction) by end of year 1.
1. Provisional boundaries of at least 3 MPAs and key
legal issues and management objectives identified by end
of year 2.
1. Yr. 3 – 5: Lessons learned from creation of
MPAs and other new protected areas (e.g.
Walvis Bay) will be assessed and documented
for replication strategy.
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Decisions feeding back into vision
and White Paper development process.
1. Creation of at least 3 MPAs in line with NAMETT
principles by end of year 5.
2. Conservation and sustainable use activities as
proposed inside management plans for terrestrial
and marine hotspots with significant importance
for biodiversity conservation on the Namib coast
successfully implemented.
2. 15% of eligible investments opportunities identified in
each management plans have been submitted for
approval by end of year 2, 40% by end of year 3 and
70% by end of year 4.
2. 60 % of submitted eligible investment opportunities
have been completed within agreed timeframe by end of
year 5.
36
2. Yr. 2 – 5: Review scope and content of
investment to draw lessons learned for new
proposals.
2. Yr. 1 – 3: Assess proponent capacity to
develop investment proposals.
2. Yr. 4 – 5: Document contribution and assess
options for replication and mainstreaming of
investments into local development planning and
MET’s NPA Project.
62
2. Biodiversity status in critical ecosystems of Namibia’s
coast and marine areas with investments has recovered
and/or improved by 40 % by end of year 5 compared to
baseline assessment.
management.
1. 90% of Project activities identified in annual work
plans have been satisfactorily completed by end of each
year.
1. Yr. 2 – 5: Assess performance of PMU staff
and modify staffing if needed.
1. Annual budget review to adjust work plan.
2. Publication of periodic Project reports (semestrial
reports and annual work plan available).
2. Yr. 1: Assess what training programs are
adequate to ensure timely and qualitative
reporting and monitoring.
3. Regular performance and impact monitoring reports
produced and disseminated in accordance with PIM and
annual work plan schedule.
3. Yr. 2 – 5: Adjustments proposed in annual
work plan developments and implementation
arrangements.
4. Review and up-date of PPP by mid-term available.
3. Yr. 1-3: Lessons learned feeding into
development of replication plan.
2. Yr. 1 – 2: Template documents drafted that
can be used to solicit, receive, evaluate and keep
track of targeted investments as well as auditing.
Component Four:
1. Coordination and management to achieve
successful Project implementation according to
Project Implementation Manual and work plan.
2. Compliance with fiduciary requirements.
5. Replication plan developed by mid-term.
6. External MTR available by end of yr 3.
63
B. Arrangements for Results Monitoring
Outcome
Indicators
Baseline
YR1
YR2
Target Values
YR3
MTR
YR4
YR5
EOP
Data Collection and Reporting
Frequency and
Data
Responsibility
Reports
Collection
for Data
Instruments
Collection
PDO/PGO:
1.
X km2 and
number of terrestrial
and marine37
biodiversity hotspots
under effective
management as
defined by
NAMETT38 by year 5
compared with
baseline situation.
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Semi-Annual progress
reporting
NAMETT
MET
TBD
Baseline
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
Annual progress
reporting
Surveys
RC, LA
3. Biodiversity related
aspects are
incorporated into all
up-coming sector
policies (tourism,
fisheries, mining and
urban development) at
national, regional and
local levels, as
identified in the White
Paper, by year 5.
TBD
X
X
X
X
Results Indicators
Baseline
2. Flow of economic
benefits from
activities linked to
ecosystem and
biodiversity
management on the
coast has increased by
year 5 compared with
baseline situation.
0
YR1
YR2
Target Values
YR3
X
YR4
YR5
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
ICZMC, PMU,
MET
Data Collection and Reporting
Frequency and
Data
Responsibility
In the project context, marine hotspots are meant to be MPAs: MPAs are here defined based on IUCN’s definition (Resolution 17.38 of the IUCN General
Assembly, 1988, reaffirmed in Resolution 19.46, 1994): “Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying water and associated flora, fauna,
historical and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to protect part or all of the enclosed environment.”
38
“Effective management” would be assessed through use of the Namibian adapted WWF/WB PA tracking tool (NAMETT), a score card for PAs and MPAs.
37
64
for Each (sub-)
Component
Component One:
1. A formal definition
of coastal zone for
policy and legislative
purposes drafted and
agreed upon by
identified stakeholders
by end of year one.
MTR
EOP
Reports
Collection
Instruments
for Data
Collection
0
X
Quarterly progress
reporting
Formal
document
PMU, ICZMC
1. Legislation related
to coastal zone
management has been
reviewed by end of
year 1.
Initial review
during
preparation
X
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Meeting reports
from
NACOMA’s
policy and legal
group
PMU, ICZMC,
CZ SG
1. At the end of year 2
a list of proposed
amendments for
legislation (priority
gaps) available (e.g.
replacement of Sea
Shore Ordinance,
drafting of new
Coastal Zone
Management Act).
Initial
suggestions
from
preparation
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Meeting reports
from
NACOMA’s
policy and legal
group
PMU, ICZMC,
CZ SG
Annual progress
reporting
Ministerial note
on status of
priority
amendments
PMU, ICZMC
ICZMC approval
document
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Official
approval note
signed by MET,
MFMR and
other LM
SC
Annual progress
reporting
Survey
PMU
1. By end of year 4,
all recommendations
for proposed legal
amendments
published
2. Formal approval of
revised ICZMC
(mandate, members)
by year 3.
2. 80 % of identified
key stakeholders share
same understanding of
roles and mandates
pertaining policy
making and ICZM
related legislation by
X
0
X
X
--
TBD
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
65
the end of year 5.
3. The vision process
successfully finalized
through multistakeholder
participation in a
series of workshops
and consultations
resulting in an agreed
coastal vision by end
of year 2.
0
3. Green Paper on
conservation and
sustainable
development of the
Namib Coast drafted
by end of year 3.
0
Semi/annual progress
reporting
X
4. Regional coastal
PMU, ICZMC
Draft vision
statement
Issue
teams
build Draft
vision
statement
available
Prioritization of
policy issues,
presentation of
options to address
issues identified,
recommendations
of preferred policy
and further action.
Consultations and
technical input.
Consolidations of
inputs and
recommendations
to produce a
Green Paper
3. The White Paper
(NACOWP), based on
further input and
following further
consultations, will be
published and signed
by at least MET,
MFMR, MME,
MRLGH by year 5.
3. Line ministries
(MET, MME, MFMR,
MAWRD, MWTC)
budget allocation for
ICZM related issues
increased by 10 % by
year 5 compared to
baseline situation.
Minutes of
meetings,
workshops,
consultations
reports
Public
consultation
on ‘green
paper’
Further
public
consultation
and
technical
input into
drafting of
White Paper
TBD
1 (Erongo
Semi-Annual progress
reporting
X
X
PMU, ICZMC,
SC
Consultation
notes
Public
comment,prior
finalization,
approval by
LM and
publication of
White Paper
10 %
X
Green paper
document
X
Semi-Annual progress
reporting
Meeting notes
Technical input
papers (issue
team notes)
Consultation
notes
White Paper
PMU, ICZMC,
SC
Annual progress
reporting
LM budget
proposals
ICZMC, SC
Annual progress
(up-dated)
RC, PMU,
66
profiles, as defined by
key stakeholders, are
in place in the four
regions at the end of
year 2, reviewed and
up-dated if necessary
at the end of year 3, 4
and 5
Component 2:
1. 60 % of key
stakeholders
(Regional Councils,
LA, MET, MME,
MAWRD, MWTC,
MFMR (including
regional offices of line
ministries) and other
ICZMC members) are
trained in ICZM, GIS
and mapping,
monitoring and
evaluation,
participatory
approaches,
communication and
negotiation skills, EIA
and SEA by end of
year 5 in comparison
to a baseline skills
audit.
Region)
2. Two out of four
coastal regions have
well-defined jobdescriptions and
procedures for transfer
of responsibilities
from MET to
Regional
Environmental
Development Planners
in place by year 4.
0
2. At the end of year
3, training provided to
key members of the
expanded ICZMC,
leads to satisfactorily
implementation of the
ICZMC mandate
0
0
20%
-------
30%
40%
50%
X
X
X
X
60 %
reporting
Coastal profile
documents
ICZMC, SC
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Training
certificates, list
of participants
and training
modules
description
PMU
Annual progress
reporting
RC
organigramm,
job descriptions
RC, PMU
Annual progress
reporting
Training
modules and list
of ICZMC
participants;
annual review
of ICZMC
ICZMC, PMU,
SC
67
identified under the
institutional review of
component 1.
3. At the end of year
2, the most costeffective, appropriate
and accessible option
to channel coastal and
marine biodiversity
data to policy and
decisions-makers as
well as other
stakeholders has been
selected and agreed
upon by the ICZMC.
3. Coastal and marine
biodiversity M&E
related data is
systematically
collected, stored, updated and made
accessible to
stakeholders by end of
year 3.
4. A knowledge
management action
plan, including
communication
strategy content, tools
and channels, is
developed by end of
year 1 and under
implementation by
year 2.
4. ICZMC, through its
Secretariat, has full
responsibility and
capacity to maintain
KM system by year 4,
in line with
NACOWP objectives.
4. 80% of relevant
Regional Council
staff, MET regional
offices' staff, ICZMC
activities
TBD
X
0
X
X
No
knowledge
management
mechanism
available.
KM
network
system
available
Communication
strategy under
implementation
X
0
0
X
20 %
30 %
50 %
60 %
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Assessment
report
PMU, MET and
MFMR
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Assessment
report
PMU, SC,
ICZMC
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Survey, requests
and monitoring
of action plan
implementation
PMU
ICZMC activity
report
ICZMC
Secretariat
Surveys
PMU
Annual progress
reporting
80 %
Quarterly/Semi/Annual
progress reporting
68
members, line
ministries focal
points, Local
Authorities, CBOs
and the private sector
make use
communication tools
(newsletter, web-page,
thematic brochures,
meetings etc.) by end
of year 5.
4. Awareness about
the importance of
coastal zone resources
and ICZM among the
three key target
groups and local
communities
increased by 70 %
compared to baseline
survey (and using
results from NCSA
and MET’s
Biodiversity Training
Assessment) by year
5.
Component Three:
1. 75 % of
management plans for
identified 11
terrestrial and 3
marine (MPA)
hotspots reviewed,
revised or developed
through highly
participatory
approaches, in
complementarity with
other initiatives39 , and
in line with local and
regional development
plans by end of year
5..
0
0 approved
terrestrial
management
plans with
recognized
legal status
(see Annex
18) and 0
mgmt plans
for MPA
1. Creation of Walvis
Bay Nature Reserve
39
0
20%
2
30%
4
50%
6
Developed or updated
60%
70 %
8
10
Developed or
up-dated
Annual progress
reporting
Surveys
PMU
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Management
plans and
regulations
PMU, MET,
RCs, Las
NAMETT
assessment at
mid-term and
EOP
X
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Official
document
LA, MET
MET’s NPA Project.
69
by year 2.
1. MET and MFMR
reaching agreement on
the basic approach for
creation of MPAs
(including location,
numbers, funding and
jurisdiction) by end of
year 1.
0
X
1. Provisional
boundaries of at least
3 MPAs and key legal
issues and
management
objectives identified
by end of year 2.
0
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
0
X
15%
40%
X
1. Creation of at least
3 MPAs in line with
NAMETT principles
by end of year 5.
2. 15% of eligible
investments
opportunities
identified in each
management plan
have been submitted
for approval by end of
year 2, 40% by end of
year 3 and 70% by
end of year 5.
2. 60 % of submitted
eligible investment
opportunities have
been completed within
agreed timeframe by
end of year 5.
2. Biodiversity status
in critical ecosystems
of Namibia’s coast
and marine areas has
recovered and/or
improved by 40 % by
end of year 5
X(3)
Quarterly progress
reporting
Memorandum
of
Understanding
MET, MFMR,
ICZMC and
PMU
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Official
document
MET, MFMR,
MPA, SC and
ICZMC
Annual progress
reporting
Official
document
Semi/Annual progress
reporting
Investment
proposals
submitted to
PMU
MET, MFMR,
ICZMC
70%
0
TBD
X
40%
50%
60%
Annual progress
reporting
Audit reports
X
X
X
X
X
40%
Annual progress
reporting
Coastal and
marine
biodiversity
monitoring
reports,
NAMETT
PMU, RCs,
ICZMC
PMU
MET, MFMR,
CZ SG, PMU
70
compared to baseline
assessment.
Component Four:
1. 90% of Project
activities identified in
annual work plans
have been
satisfactorily
completed by end of
each year.
2. Publication of
periodic Project
reports (semestrial
reports and annual
work plan available).
3. Regular
performance and
impact monitoring
reports produced and
disseminated in
accordance with PIM
and annual work plan
schedule.
0
X
X
X
X
X
Quarterly/Semi/Annual
progress reporting
Supervision
reports
PMU, WB, SC
0
X
X
X
X
Quarterly/Semi/Annual
progress reporting
Supervision
reports
PMU, WB, SC
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
Semi-Annual
monitoring reports
Supervision
reports
SC, ICZMC,
PMU, WB
4. Review and up-date
of PPP by mid-term
available.
X
PPP revision
Assessment
report
PMU, consultant
5. Replication plan
developed by midterm.
X
Annual preparation
documents with lessons
learned
Replication plan
PMU
MTR report
MTR report
PMU
(consultant)
6. External MTR
available by end of yr
3.
71
Annex 4: Detailed Project Description
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
1.
The Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project aims
to enhance coastal and marine biodiversity conservation through the mainstreaming of
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into coastal policy, legislative framework, and
institutional and technical capacity and by supporting targeted investments for biodiversity
conservation in critical ecosystems on the coast. The project’s four components are:




Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management of the
Namib Coast
Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity
Conservation
Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable
Use and Mainstreaming
Project Management and Performance Monitoring
2.
The four components were selected in order to assist the Government of Namibia at
national, regional and local level to address the three key sector issues identified in section A.1:
(i) slow decentralization with currently absence of environmental functions delegated; (ii)
increasing human-made threats to fragile coastal ecosystems in particular related to uncontrolled
economic activities; and (iii) lack of a common vision and mainstreaming of biodiversity
conservation into development planning and management for the coastal zone. All components
are closely interlinked and address together these key sector issues.
3.
The components have been defined during the preparation phase of the project through a
participatory approach including numerous meetings and workshops with all concerned
stakeholders and specific technical assessments and studies.
Project Intervention Zone (see also Annex 17)
The following definition of an intervention zone aims to provide a workable scale for coastal
planning and management, in particular related to aquaculture expansion, terrestrial mining
concessions, downstream fish processing, expansion of settlements, salt refining, tourism and
agriculture upstream from important river mouths.
4.
NACOMA’s intervention area runs the full length of the coast, from the
median line of the Kunene River to the north to the median line of the Orange
River to the south. These correspond to Namibia’s existing international boundaries. The western
and eastern boundaries have been defined to include all identified biodiversity hotspots, critical
species habitats, coastal ecosystems and distinctive coastal landscapes, and include the main
areas where current and predicted activities and development cumulatively impact on coastal
ecological function and biodiversity. At sea (western boundary), the NACOMA intervention
area follows an internationally-recognized boundary (territorial sea at 12 nautical miles) as it
is extensive enough to include the biodiversity-rich near-shore islands and rocks to the north and
south
of
Lüderitz,
including
the
furthest one
(Hollams Bird Island, 10.7 nautical miles from land). It also
encompasses the areas
72
most likely to be affected by the mainly near-shore activities and processes identified during
NACOMA Project preparation, e.g., shore- and shallow-water diamond mining out to a depth of
150m. This provisional limit will be re-assessed during the first year of
NACOMA implementation to take account of possible coastal impacts from offshore oil drilling,
fisheries and other processes or activities in the EEZ, as well as marine impacts from coastal
activities. On land (eastern boundary), the intervention area will be delimited by the eastern
boundary of coastal urban municipalities and outside urbanized, by an arbitrary line around 2-3
km from the coast. This needs to be adjusted to take in fragile habitats (e.g. unprotected dune
belts) as well as important landscape features. In estuaries and river mouths, areas of
jurisdictional and management uncertainty, the boundary will need to extend at least to the limit
of salinity and if necessary, further inland. The riparian ‘strip’ will be broad enough to include
associated wetlands and fragile watersheds and areas subject to riparian mining concessions or
major agriculture. One option would be to follow the boundaries of local authorities with
territory adjacent to these rivers
Component 1: Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem
Management of the Namib Coast (GEF: US$ million 0.91)
Introduction
5.
This component fills the current gap for mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and
management into policy, legal and institutional structures affecting the development of the
coastal zone. Such a process falls within existing national, regional, local and sectoral
frameworks, i.e. Vision 2030, NDP 2, RDPs, NBSAP, NAPCOD, all of which call for
sustainable development of the coastal zone of Namibia. As such, this component focuses on the
development of a highly participatory policy framework, the Namibia Coastal Management
White Paper, which is seen as the critical element for sustainable ecosystem management of the
Namib coast. The GRN has acquired considerable experience of developing policy White Papers
through a participative process, mainly for individual sectors.40 In the cross-sectoral context of
coastal management, NACOMA will provide structured support for defining issues and
priorities, discussing alternative scenarios and building consensus, notably through its detailed
arrangements for inter-institutional dialogue and participation (see Annex 20). Further, this
component will provide institutional and legal input to support a paradigm shift from
nationalized to regional and local management of biodiversity and coastal resources through the
on-going decentralization process. The clarification of institutional mandates will be particularly
relevant for the future role of the ICZMC, the potential lead structure to facilitate mainstreaming
coastal biodiversity conservation into sectoral policies and actions. The component will fill
further the knowledge gap about linkages between socio-economic, environmental and
biodiversity conservation issues through the participatory development of regional coastal
profiles. These will be used as basis for local, regional and national decision-making processes
and will feed-back into the State of Environment Report and National Resource Accounting
efforts.
40
Towards Responsible Development of the Fisheries Sector (MFMR, December 1991); White Paper On National Policy On
Disability (MLRR, March 1997); Energy Policy (Energy Policy Committee of MME, May 1998); Minerals Policy (date?); White
Paper on the Water Policy Framework (approved by Cabinet in 2000 as a basis for continued consultation under the
responsibility of the Namibian Water Resources Management Review).
73
6.
The primary target group for this component is the national (mainly MET, MFMR,
MME, MAWRD, MWTC, MRGLH), regional and local governments involved in coastal zone
management.
7.





The specific outputs from this component will include:
An agreed upon formal draft definition of the coastal zone for policy and legislative
purposes.
A publication of recommendations for proposed legal amendments.
A formal approval of mandates and members of an extended ICZMC
Coastal Management White Paper and corresponding joint coastal zone vision
Coastal profiles for each coastal region
8.
This component will include the 4 following sub-components:
Sub-component 1: Review of Existing Laws and Support for Appropriate Legislation
Sub-component 2: Clarification of institutional mandates
Sub-component 3: Development of Policy Framework
Sub-component 4: Development of Coastal Profiles
Sub-component 1: Review of Existing Laws and Support for Appropriate Legislation
Purpose
9.
This sub-component will support the establishment of a coastal legal and policy group
(issue group) aiming to review and improve the legal and regulatory framework conducive to
coastal biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming. An initial limited review has been carried
out during preparation and will provide the basis for this task.
Activity 1 – Detailed review of Existing Coastal Zone-Related Legislation and Identification of
Adjustments
A review of existing coast-relevant legislation, which will include the legal frameworks for
biodiversity conservation and key economic sectors, would be undertaken by a small group of
legal experts. The review will be available at the end the first year of the project. Focused
consultation on implementation and associated consistency questions that arise during the review
process will be held with the main stakeholders. The review and gap analysis will lead to the
development of a prioritized list of proposed adjustments to current legislation for biodiversity
conservation and recommendations on possible new legislation (e.g. replacement of Sea Shore
Ordinance, drafting of new Coastal Zone Management Act). This list will be prepared in
collaboration with interested parties through meetings and targeted workshops. It will be
completed at the end of year 2. In addition, this activity will include targeted support and
technical assistance to the MET in EIA, which is a critical instrument to enable and support
ICZM and mainstreaming of biodiversity.
The review will further focus on the financial resources and income sources available to coastal
RCs and LAs for biodiversity conservation and ICZM. RCs and LAs will be assisted to identify
alternative sources of funding to reduce reliance on national government funding and increase
their local and regional operational budget.
74
Activity 2 - Amendments to Current Legislation and Development of a Coastal New Law (if
needed)
Once all key stakeholders (SC, ICZMC and other line ministries) have agreed on the proposed
adjustments, necessary steps will be taken to amend or repeal existing legislation during the
course of the project and, as necessary, to prepare draft ICZM legislation for submission to
Parliament for approval.
Sub-component 2: Clarification of Institutional Mandates
Purpose
10.
The purpose of this sub-component is to clarify institutional mandates of the key players
(such as RC, LA and line ministries) regarding the conservation and sustainable use of coastal
biodiversity. This clarification will be a major contribution to mainstream environmental and
biodiversity planning and will foster the decentralization process of key sectoral line ministries.
It will also improve coordination and cooperation among key stakeholders at local, regional and
national level and across sectors in terms of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
Finally, this clarification will be particularly relevant for the ICZMC, the potential lead structure
to facilitate mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity conservation management and sustainable use
into sectoral policies and actions.
Activity 1 - Review and Clarification of Roles and Mandates of Key Institutions
This activity will consist of the review of roles and mandates of key institutions involved in
biodiversity conservation and coastal development. The mandates for the following relevant
institutions will be reviewed: main line ministries (MET, MRLGH, MAWRD, MFMR, MME,
MWTC, MLRR), the ICZMC, RCs, LAs and the RDCCs, land boards, private sector and
NGOs/CBOs. The review will identify overlaps, conflicts and grey areas regarding roles and
mandates in terms of biodiversity conservation through multi-stakeholder consultations. Several
workshops with role players will be conducted to make sure that all key stakeholders identify
and agree on basic mandates and roles with particular reference to biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use on the coast. Also, “problem-solving workshops” on specific issues (e.g. MPA
jurisdiction issues; scope of MET decentralization) will be held.
Activity 2 – Support MET to Pilot Transfer of Environmental Responsibilities
Based on the process above, decentralized biodiversity-related functions of line ministries
(mainly MET, but also MFMR, MAWRD) will be clarified and transitional guidelines for RC,
line ministries’ regional office operational staff, management and administration of these
activities will be jointly developed (supported by donor-initiatives for decentralization).
Sub-component 3: Development of Policy Framework
Purpose
11.
This sub-component will use a broad based public participation process engaging a range
of local, regional, and national level stakeholders to collect elements for developing an integrated
coastal zone management vision, based on the findings and results of sub-components 1.1. and
1.2. The vision will be later included into the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper. The
Namibia Coastal Management White Paper will provide an overarching and comprehensive
framework to support integrated planning and decision-making affecting coastal lands and
waters, based on the carrying capacity of the Namibian coast as a whole. The appropriate process
75
and methodology will be finalized and detailed at appraisal. However it follows the following
approach (see also Annex 3):
Activity 1 – Development of a National Coastal Zone Vision
A collaborative national coastal zone vision will be developed to ensure sustainable conservation
and management of the coastal and marine ecosystems. The vision will be based on the generic
principles of ICZM including SEA as one key instrument. This vision will be developed and
shared by government agencies, local communities, NGO/CBOs, private sector, academic
institutions and other relevant stakeholders. Technical assistance will be provided for the
preparation of the vision.
Activity 2 - Development of a Namibia Coastal Management White Paper
A policy and legal expert working group will be established to facilitate together with the
ICZMC and the SC the development of a draft Namibia Coastal Management White Paper
(NACOWP) in accordance with the findings of the previous sub-components. The pre-defined
main principles of the NACOWP are summarized below:
-
Ownership: A sustainable ICZM policy that meets the needs and maximizes opportunities
for the Namibian people, environment and economy needs to be seen as ‘home-grown’ and
responsive to as wide a range of interests as possible. A strong sense of ownership and
transparency are key incentives to effective policy implementation. At the same time, the
WP process must be firmly grounded in the broader policy context in terms of national
sustainable development planning and ongoing decentralization.
-
Participation: This collaborative approach is already embedded in arrangements for
NACOMA’s implementation, which combine a broad-based executive unit (SC) with the
advisory ICZMC. The SC, combining key line ministries and high-level regional
representation, is well placed to initiate the policy-making process early on in NACOMA.41
The ICZMC, whose mandate will be clarified and strengthened during the project, has the
potential to draw in and engage the full range of relevant stakeholders, including
community-based and private sectors, in the policy formulation process.
-
Balance and equality: The WP process needs to ensure balanced coverage of the Namibian
coast as a whole, taking account of the characteristics, unique values and environmental
sensitivity of different parts of the coast. The methodology for the preparation of the WP
will integrate strategic environmental assessment principles to determine coastal carrying
capacity and provide a strong basis for ecologically sustainable zoning for different coastal
land- and water- uses.
The WP development process will involve both public and specialist consultations. It needs to be
closely tied to all relevant NACOMA activities to maximize synergies and minimize delay. For
example, the legal and institutional review process (Cps. 1.1-1.2) is an essential first step towards
41
Previous White Paper processes (mainly single-sector) have been spearheaded by special committees within the appropriate
line ministries, prior to presentation to Cabinet and/or the National Assembly. The process from committee formulation to
submission of the policy seems generally to have taken about 2.5 - 3 years.
76
clarification of roles and functions for the coast, whilst the development and updating of coastal
profiles (Cp.1.4) will provide primary material for the contextual parts of the WP.
The main stages of the White Paper development process will involve:
 Issue-specific research and consultation on different activities/processes affecting coastal
lands and waters (issue teams build on issues identified and material compiled during the
NACOMA preparatory phase and from other resources e.g. BCLME programme).
 Prioritization of policy issues, presentation of options/scenarios to address the issues
identified and recommendations on the preferred policy and further action in each case.
Issue teams lead consultations with key stakeholders.
 Broader public consultation at various milestones of these specialist consultations
(starting with explanatory sessions and progressing towards discussion of specific
options).
 Consolidation of inputs and recommendations to produce a preliminary draft policy
(‘green paper’ or equivalent) and draft vision.
 Public consultation on ‘green paper’ followed by expert-led development of draft WP.
 Public comment invited on draft WP, prior to finalization, approval by the National
Government (e.g. ICZMC members) and publication.
 Throughout the Project’s lifetime, the draft WP will be reviewed and amended as to
capture lessons and best practices developed through and by Project activities in year 5.
External assistance may be needed to conceptualize and support the policy process: this should
be determined at appraisal.
Sub-component 4: Development of Coastal Profiles
Purpose
12.
This sub-component will fill further the knowledge gap about linkages between socioeconomic, environmental and biodiversity conservation issues through the participatory
development of regional coastal profiles, to be a basis for mainly local, regional but also national
decision-making processes and feed-back into the State of Environment Report and National
Resource Accounting efforts.
Activity 1: Preparation of Coastal Profiles
This activity will support the establishment of regional-level technical committees/task forces for
each coastal region. The technical committees will be in charge of gathering socio-economic,
environmental and biodiversity data on the Namib coast for each region in order to draft the
coastal profiles. The content of the coastal profiles will be built on the model of the existing
coastal profile for the Erongo Region, which will be subsequently up-dated but adapted to
regional differences.
77
The profiles for the three other coastal regions, Kunene, Hardap and Karas, will be developed on
the basis of coastal spatial planning and zoning, covering land and water areas as to determine
preferred locations for strict biodiversity conservation, for limited access and controlled use of
biodiversity and the natural resource base, for sustainable low to medium-impact use, such as
recreational purposes, and for sustainable economic development. The coastal zone profiles will
be linked to the Regional Development Plans. The process of drafting and developing these
profiles will be based on the capacity built in the Regional Councils under component 2.
Activity 2: Review, Publication and Updating of Coastal Profiles
Through public meetings for comments and feedback, and through focused workshop for input
from a broad range of local, regional and national level stakeholders, the draft coastal profiles
will be reviewed and endorsed. The coastal profiles will be in place in the four RCs at the end of
year 2. Finally, a system will be set-up at RC level in order to continuously update the profiles.
Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity
Conservation (GEF: US$ million 1.52)
Introduction
13.
This component aims to fill the capacity gap at local, regional and national level in
support of integrated coastal zone management, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in
particular related to mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity and resources into development
planning and key economic activities. Taking into account the results from sub-component 1.2
(clarification of institutional mandates), and based on the available training needs assessment and
in collaboration with other initiatives, this component will provide urgently needed targeted
support to key stakeholders at various levels. The component will further provide support to
MET’s efforts to mainstream and decentralize biodiversity management aiming at strengthening
local and regional delivery mechanisms. This component enables stakeholders to develop and
make best use of appropriate communication tools and channels based on a sound knowledge
management system and action plan, including feed-back loops for inter-sectoral, vertical and
international sharing of lessons learned and best practices.
14.
The primary target group of this component is the national (mainly MET, MFMR, MME,
MAWRD, MWTC, MRGLH), regional and local governments involved in CZM.
15.




Specific outputs from this component:
Skills to formalize and set-up a coastal biodiversity ecosystem monitoring mechanism
linked to other sectoral and national biodiversity monitoring efforts
Targeted training to RCs facilitated MET’s mainstreaming and delegation of biodiversity
conservation and sustainable use responsibilities for biodiversity in and outside protected
areas in two out of four coastal regions through clear job description of regional
development planners.
A coastal and marine biodiversity M&E mechanism is defined, agreed among ICZMC
members, and fully operational.
A knowledge management system, as defined by Project, is in place, implemented and
utilized by the three main target groups.
78
16.
This component will include the 3 following sub-components:
Sub-component 1: Training for ICZM
Sub-component 2: Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism
Sub-component 3: Coastal Biodiversity Knowledge Management
Sub-component 1: Training for ICZM
Purpose
17.
This sub-component will provide the national, regional and local government agencies
training identified during preparation and following the clarification of the institutional mandates
under component 1. A particular effort will be dedicated to specify and address the needs in
terms of targeted capacity to support MET’s (central and regional office) efforts to pilot the
decentralization process of biodiversity conservation management.
Activity: Development and Implementation of a Training Strategy
Based on the available detailed training needs assessment, and supported by the CZ Scientific
Group and recommendations following the sub-component I.2 (clarification of institutional
mandates), a training program that addresses these needs will be finalized. This program would
be adapted to the individual needs of the different stakeholders. Pre-identified training themes
include:
 Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM - planning and management including
management plans42)
 GIS and mapping
 Monitoring and Evaluation
 Participatory approaches (communities, private sector, government)
 Communication and negotiation skills
The form of training will be identified per each RC/LA/LM, including, for example, manuals and
procedures, on the job training, TA, formally accredited courses or workshops and study tours.
Available training resources in line ministries, regional offices and specified training centers
(e.g. MET’s DASS training officer, MFMR center in Henties Bay) and professional trainers will
be used as needed. The two Environmental Advisors will play a significant role in overseeing
and complementing the implementation of the training program.
Sub-component 2: Biodiversity Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism
Purpose
18.
Under this sub-component existing biodiversity M&E systems would be reviewed, data
and information gaps and needs assessed and a cost-effective and accessible method for a longterm coastal and marine biodiversity M&E system linked to national, regional and local
environmental monitoring efforts and in conjunction with the coastal profiles will be developed,
if needed or existing ones up-graded. The users of the coastal and marine M&E system are
expected to be mainly decision-makers at various levels as well as scientific groups interested in
issues affecting coastal and marine biodiversity conservation and uses.
42
The draft Parks and Wildlife Management Bill will become the legal framework for management plans (content,
format, legal status and periodic review).
79
Activity 1 – Data Collection, Analysis and Storage
This activity will focus on the collection of biodiversity data within the 4 regions to establish
project baseline and monitor trends over the project period in synergy with other initiatives (NPA
project, BCLME programme). The following steps will be undertaken by NACOMA and/or in
partnership with other initiatives:
 Review of existing m&e systems in place and multi-stakeholder decision on most
sustainable and cost-effective mechanism to be supported.
 Development or up-grading of methodology for data collection.
 Data analysis and compilation into integrated database using technologies such as GIS,
aerial photography, remote sensing.
 Identification and development of suitable indicators for monitoring biodiversity changes
and other related issues.
 Then, coastal biodiversity M&E related data would be systematically collected, stored in
the system, up-dated and made accessible to the stakeholder by the end of year 2.
Activity 2 - Establishment of a M&E System
In order to develop a new - or expand an existing – long-term coastal and marine biodiversity
M&E system at national or regional level, this activity will support the purchase of hardware and
software, and the design of integrated system for the M&E (i.e. database), if needed (see activity
1).
Sub-component 3: Coastal Biodiversity Knowledge Management
Purpose
19.
This sub-component is concerned with addressing the knowledge gap related to coastal
and marine biodiversity among all stakeholders. It will follow the findings and issues identified
in the Project Participation Plan and support the development of a coastal biodiversity
knowledge management system and a communication action plan. A replication plan to share
lessons learned inside Namibia and with other countries in the sub-region would be prepared by
MTR. It would further provide access to existing learning and knowledge sharing tools, in
particular for regional and local governments but also line ministries. The installation of effective
and appropriate communication, networking and coordination (including reporting) mechanisms
between Regional Councils and MET is expected to establish and consolidate communication
between Regional Councils, MET and other stakeholders.
Activity 1 – Development of a Knowledge Management System
Under this activity a knowledge management mechanism (network) linking all four regions and
other key implementing agents at national, regional and local level will be developed to enhance
their capacities to share information, including status of the site-specific management plans,
environmental interventions, best practices (replication elements) and monitoring and evaluation
assessments. ICZMC is expected to play a major role in defining the scope and content of the
KM mechanism and to lead the networking.
To this end, the Project will build on and use the Distance Learning and Information Sharing
Tool (DLIST) as an established and successful information platform. Also, links with related
programs, such as the BCLME, NPA, BENEFIT and others, will be established to share
information and lessons learned.
80
The system will be in place by the end of year 1 and under implementation by year 2 (under the
supervision of the ICZMC).
Activity 2 -Development of a Communication Strategy
As part of the knowledge management mechanism, a communication strategy including a public
education and awareness campaign will be developed to provide the public with information on
the coastal vision and NACOWP development process. Such a campaign is expected to be
carried out through a range of tools, e.g. radio clips, a newsletter for distribution in the regions
(and in tourist offices), the development of websites with specific information pertaining to each
region (linked to the coastal profiles), and up-dated websites of MET/DEA and other line
ministries, etc. Further, it will contribute to increase overall environmental awareness in
particular related to coastal resources and management among all stakeholder groups.
Component 3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation,
Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming (GEF: US$ million 1.52)
Introduction
20.
This component will fill on-the-ground gaps for coastal biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use throughout the Project intervention zone.
21.
The primary target groups are local, regional, and national government (MET, MAWRD,
MFMR, MME, MWTC) involved in CZM, local communities and private sectors.
22.



Specific outputs of this component:
Revised or developed Management plans for identified terrestrial and marine hotspots
Conservation and sustainable use activities as proposed inside management plans for
terrestrial and marine hotspots with significant importance for biodiversity conservation
on the Namib coast successfully implemented.
New Marine Protected Areas and a Walvis Bay Nature Reserve.
23.
This component includes the 2 following sub-components:
Sub-component 1: Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Plans
Sub-component 2: Implementation of Priority Actions under the Management Plans
Sub-component 1: Coastal and Marine Biodiversity Management Sites and Plans
Purpose
24.
This sub-component includes a participatory review, up-date and development of at least
75 % of all management plans for coastal and marine biodiversity priority conservation sites and
their buffer zones in line with recommendations on the appropriate financial and institutional
mechanisms and capacity developed emerging from component 1 and 2. In order to increase
functioning biodiversity conservation management in priority coastal areas, demarcation and
gazetting of sites would be supported.
Activity 1: Review and Up-dating of Existing Management Plans
81
Under this activity, draft, outdated and proposed management plans and associated activity plans
for the 11 identified terrestrial hotspots of the Namib coast (see Annex 18, table 3) will be
reviewed through a highly participatory process involving the key stakeholders and in close
coordination with other initiatives (e.g. NPA). This will allow identification of strength and
weakness of each management plan in terms of management effectiveness, biodiversity
conservation, boundaries, legislation, and enforcement but more importantly assure
mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and sustainable use into regional and local
development planning. In order to make sure that management plans are well implemented, an
annual review will be undertaken by trained staff from the PA by using an adapted version of the
“site-level management effectiveness tracking tool43”, the Namibian Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool (NAMETT).
Activity 2: Creation of New Protected Areas
Conservation gaps through the existing network of protected areas on the coast will be filled by
NACOMA in complementarity with NPA and other initiaves. Identified Project intervention sites
of global biodiversity importance will demonstrate a potential for benefit sharing with
communities as well as for sustainable use activities with local, regional and national benefits
(linked to regional and local development planning and NACOWP principles).
(i) Marine Protected Areas (MPAs44)
Following the “COFAD report45” where the establishment of fifteen possible Marine Protected
Areas on the Namibian coastline is identified, the Project will support the creation of at least 3
MPAs along the Namib coast. During the first year, an agreement between MET and MFMR on
the basic approach and exact numbers of MPAs will be facilitated. Once, this agreement is
reached, the MPAs provisional boundaries, key issues and management objectives will be
identified, followed by the draft of management plans for the identified MPAs sites, and the
necessary “classification” process will start during year 3. In order to make sure that the newly
developed management plans are well implemented, an annual review will be undertaken by
staff from MPA by using a simple tool entitled “Score Card to assess progress in achieving
management effectiveness goals for Marine Protected Areas”46 or an adapted version of the
NAMETT.
(ii) Other Protected Areas
NACOMA will support the creation of other conservation areas such as e.g. the proposed
Walvis Bay Nature Reserve which aims to put the currently unprotected major Walvis Bay
Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites – A simple site-level management effectiveness tracking tool – 2003 –
world Bank / WWF alliance for forest conservation and sustainable use.
44 The MPA definition follows the ICUN one: “Any area of intertidal or subtidal terrain, together with its overlying
water and associated flora, fauna and cultural features, which has been reserved by law or other effective means to
protect part or all of the enclosed environment”.
45
Advisory Assistance to the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources Baseline Study of the Establishment of
Marine Reserves in Namibia – Short Term Consultancy Report, 1998.
46
Hatziolos M., Staub F. Score Card to assess progress in achieving management effectiveness goals for Marine
Protected Areas. 2004. The World Bank.
43
82
hotspot (wetlands) under effective management.47 Other wetlands, near-shore sites and
unprotected islands might be included at a later stage.
Sub-component 2: Implementation of Priority Actions under the Management Plans
Purpose
25.
This sub-component supports the implementation of site-specific management plans
through targeted investments related to biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation, in and
outside identified hotspots. It prioritizes small-scale use of coastal resources to support
sustainable livelihoods with high potential for piloting, testing and learning. The analysis of
coastal use values during preparation has indicated that these uses are relatively under-developed
in Namibia. Fairly recently initiated efforts are underway by stakeholders such as the University
of Namibia to research these kinds of potential uses and some targeted and site-specific activities
have been identified during project preparation. This sub-component will follow the incremental
and sustainable principle and, thus, will be closely linked to national, regional and local sitespecific planning and management efforts. Generic criteria would be cost effectiveness, value
added, sustainability, empowerment of previously disadvantaged, partnerships and co-financing,
community involvement. During the process of activities identification and approval, an EMP,
developed during Project preparation, will be utilized to ensure that on-the-ground activities are
carried out in line with World Bank Safeguard Policies, and that all possible negative impacts are
considered and mitigation measures are spelled out prior to the implementation of any activity.
Activity 1: Biodiversity Conservation and Rehabilitation Activities
This activity will focus on the support to specific activities of local, regional and national
importance for biodiversity conservation such as:

Conservation planning
- Identification of additional coastal biodiversity hotspots through support, for
example, for aerial surveys and spatial planning48
- Identification of priority conservation and protection measures throughout the coastal
region
- Support to priority targeted research projects (e.g. study of lesser known taxa, surveys
of key habitats, indigenous knowledge, fungal pathogens on Welwitschia) in order to
guide management planning and monitoring

Conservation management and monitoring
- Monitoring of hotspots based on initial baseline assessment and follow-up monitoring
and enforcement (patrols, control measures)
- Provision of adequate equipment for local staff (office and monitoring)

Habitat restoration
- Vegetation cover restoration e.g. using indigenous plants
- Soil erosion control in biodiversity priority areas
47
The Walvis Bay Dunes (Between Walvis Bay and Swakopmund) are excluded from the Nature reserve. A plan is
in place for these dunes and the Municipal intentions are to recruit an private company to manage the area on its
behalf as per the Plan.
48
In line with IUCN-defined categories for zoning activities and spatial planning.
83

Pilot demonstration of biodiversity-friendly restoration of land after mining and
exploration
Protection of water resources
- Identification of key coastal waters, their resources, uses and conservation needs
- Development of coastal waters plan (feeding into land-use planning process)
Activity 2: Sustainable Use of Prioritized Ecosystems Activities
This activity will focus on on-the-ground support for sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems as
described in the management plans. The following main activities were identified during a
broad-based stakeholder preparatory workshop and are in line with priorities of the University of
Namibia’s Marine and Coastal Resource Centre in Henties Bay as well as of regional and local
authorities :

Support to pilot environmentally friendly aquaculture and mariculture practices and
technology such as (i) mariculture development focusing on comparing different seaweed
diets for on-shore culture, confirming the feasibility of spawning broodstock under local
conditions and examining the feasibility and environmental impact of ranching, (ii)
mushroom development including evaluating the suitability of locally available substrates
for culture of oyster mushrooms, identification of indigenous mushroom species for
cultivation at the coast and evaluation of different designs of low-cost mushroom houses,
and (iii) seaweed development for sustainable harvesting

Support to pilot environmentally friendly livestock management

Support to pilot coastal agriculture and plant biodiversity: (i) Bio-saline agriculture
(particularly the cultivation of brackish water fodder crops), (ii) propagation of useful
endemic plants, such as the Hoodia cactus, and trials of the cultivation of plant species
for habitat restoration, medicinal plants, agricultural use, desert greening and sand dune
stabilization

Support to other environmentally friendly natural product processing (e.g.,!nara plant,
fish, guano, shell)

Eco-tourism: (i) small-scale infrastructure (camp sites and associated small scale
facilities, e.g. desert paths, view sites, sign posts); (ii) services (training for tourism
guides, training for impact assessment, information sheets, brochures, development of
new biodiversity friendly ecotourism products, in partnership with the communities and
the private sector)

Water resources: Awareness raising for watershed management or underground water
management if relevant including support to initiate management plans for freshwater
resources.
Component 4:Project Management and Performance Monitoring (GEF: US$ million 0.95)
Introduction
26.
The aim of this component is to ensure that the project achieves its stated objectives
through proper management and timely delivery of its outputs as defined in work plans.
27.
The primary target group is the PMU staff.
84
28.

29.


Specific outputs of this component:
Project reports and work plans
This component includes 2 sub-components:
Sub-component 1: Project office and management
Sub-component 2: Project reporting and information
Sub-component 1: Project Office and Management
Purpose and activities
30.
This sub-component supports the establishment and operationalization (through staffing,
office infrastructure and Project management related capacity-building) of a slim Project
management unit (PMU) housed in the Erongo Regional Council (see Annex 6). The PMU will
be in charge of project coordination and oversight. This sub-component will also support the
administration, financial management and procurement and monitoring (to be outsourced partly).
Further, two Environmental Advisors will be recruited to provide operational TA throughout the
project lifetime for the ICZMC members, line ministries, RCs and Las on ICZM planning,
management, monitoring issues (see training programme).
Sub-component 2: Project Reporting and Information
Purpose and activities
31.
This sub-component supports the PMU in conducting performance monitoring,
evaluation of Project progress and M&E reporting, which will enable the delivery of Project
reports according to project implementation plan (including the EMP) and support the
development and implementation of a Project Management Information system to ensure timely
dissemination of information among national, regional and local government, communities and
other donor-supported Projects and programs.
85
Annex 5: Project Costs
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
(GEF only)
Project Cost By Component
I. Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for
Sustainable Ecosystem Management of the Namib
Coast
II. Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone
Management and Biodiversity Conservation
III. Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for
Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and
Mainstreaming
IV. Project Management and Performance
Monitoring
Local
Foreign
Total
US$ million US$ million US$ million
0.91
Total Baseline Cost
Physical Contingencies (15% included per cp)
Price Contingencies (15% included per cp)
Total Project Costs1
Interest during construction
Front-end Fee
Total Financing Required
1.52
1.52
0.95
4.9
4.9
4.9
1
Identifiable taxes and duties are US$m ___, and the total Project cost, net of taxes, is
US$m___. Therefore, the share of Project cost net of taxes is ___%.
86
Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Introduction
1.
The most useful ICZM precedents are likely to be found in countries with federalist or
decentralized structures (e.g. South Africa, Australia) which have also had to grapple with the
relationship between different tiers of government and avoid overly-nationalized and prescriptive
approaches. Characteristics of such processes generally include a balancing act between national
enabling frameworks and regionally specific mechanisms, an emphasis on flexibility, avoidance
of duplication and overlap and compatibility with public participation.
2.
Namibia’s specificity is that everything - not just coastal management arrangements - is
undergoing substantial change as part of the decentralization process. Over NACOMA’s fiveyear lifetime, the country is expected to move from still-nationalized environment, tourism, and
other land-use functions to a decentralized and potentially sectoral devolved situation. The
current total separation of environment and planning functions should be transformed into a high
degree of integration.
3.
For these reasons, it is envisaged to follow a phased approach to institutional
arrangements for NACOMA’s implementation (prior MTR and after MTR). The arrangements
proved below will be reviewed during mid-term through the Project to identify necessary
adjustments depending on progress with decentralization and with the aim to simplify them. This
is also seen as a risk mitigation measure (see also Figure 1 below).
Implementation of the NACOMA Project
4.
NACOMA implementation will be based on structures at the national- as well as
regional level (see figures 1 and 2 after para. 18).
The rationale for a national unit is that high-level buy-in, greater coastal awareness and stronger
coordination and communication between line ministries are preconditions for successful
development of coastal policy. A national unit can help to ensure that implementation actions
start promptly, whatever the position regarding decentralization. As matters now stand, it seems
to be premature to place lead and sole responsibilities on Regional Councils as they are still
lacking clear mandates, specialist environmental staff and general capacity.
(i) Steering Committee
5.
A Project Steering Committee (SC) will be established for the Project. The Committee’s
key role is to monitor Project implementation, as it will be set out in the Project Document and
the Project Work Plans, and to provide guidance thereon to the PMU.
6.
The SC structure has been designed to be as small, dynamic and manageable as possible,
but not at the expense of NACOMA objectives, i.e. to build coordination and communication
between key sectors at national level and between national and regional governments, to support
87
the ongoing decentralization of relevant functions to RCs and to respond to evolving needs and
directional changes. The approach only includes members with existing legal powers and duties,
i.e. it is a tool for more effective coordination and targeting at the coastal zone, not a new
bureaucracy. As the SC is an executive rather than advisory body, its membership will not
include NGOs and other co-opted bodies.
7.
For the first half of the project, members would include:
 A high level representative of MET (Chair), MRLGH (two - planning function and a
representative of the Directorate of Decentralization Coordination-DDC), MFMR and MME.
Representatives from MAWRD and MWTC will also be included, either during first or
second halves. If this is found to be not feasible (pending on appraisal assessment), Coastal
Focal Points would be nominated in those ministries to be included in regular
communications, and take responsibility for feeding information back into their respective
ministries. Each SC ministry representative will set up a communication system with a line
ministry Focal Point in each coastal region, based on a simple email-based list, to strengthen
informal vertical lines of communication which are currently weak);
 A high level representative from each Regional Council to ensure parity and strong regional
participation;
 A NACOMA PMU representative (function as secretariat of the SC).
8.





Specific SC responsibilities will include:
Strong support for the completion of outstanding line ministry decentralization
implementation plans relevant to BD conservation-relevant functions (component 1);
Overseeing the production of simple ‘road maps’ with transitional guidelines for operational
staff, management and administration on functions to be decentralized (component 1);
Overseeing the training and capacity-building programs set up under NACOMA (component
2);
Supervising the work of the legal and policy review and development group to be set up as
part of NACOMA (liaison will be handled via the PMU) (component 1);
Role-over responsibilities to ICZMC if appropriate as a sustainable ICZM Committee and
future lead agency for coastal and marine conservation and management at national, regional
and local level. Thus, the SC’s temporary function for M issues would be transferred to the
enlarged ICZMC structure.
(ii) Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC)
9.
The four coastal Regional Councils have constituted an Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Committee (ICZMC) to address issues of coastal conservation, management and
planning. The ICZMC consists of the four Governors, the four Regional Executive Officers, a
councilor from each region, representatives from line ministries as well as several members of
national parliament that represent the four regions. The ICZMC was endorsed through the four
Governors and Regional Executive Officers act on their behalf and are the executing organ for
matters related to coastal biodiversity conservation. It is expected to report directly to the
Regional Councils and is theoretically accountable to the Permanent Secretaries of the MRLGH
and of the MET. The ICZMC was a structure created with a long-term perspective, whereas
88
NACOMA has a limited time horizon.49 The current definition of the role of the ICZMC
includes many of NACOMA’s objectives (participatory and integrated policy-making, coastal
information gathering and dissemination, facilitating decentralization, engagement of coastal
users etc). It describes the ICZMC as the “focal point of an ongoing process in which many
partners will be pursuing common goals”.
10.
However, as currently constituted, ICZMC’s capacity to carry out concrete actions for
this purpose is limited as it is:
 An informal mechanism, not created by statute or ministerial decision;
 Inter-regional only (composed of the Governors, REOs and National Council Members of the
four coastal Councils): it does not yet have formal mechanisms for coordination upstream to
line ministries or downstream to local authorities;
 Not yet cross-sectoral, although it is theoretically nourished by input from regional
representatives of line ministries, municipalities, NGOs, etc.
11.
Therefore, the ICZMC will act as an advisory committee. Its broad membership would
include NGOs and co-opted members, to ensure effective coordination with related donorfunded programs (e.g. UNDP Protected Areas Programme, ICEMA, BCLME Programme, etc.).
The four Regional Council members of the SC would be members ex officio. It is proposed that
they would chair the ICZMC on a revolving basis to ensure regional balance.
12.
Should the coastal policy process conclude that a specific coastal body (e.g. Coastal
Management Authority) is needed, ICZMC would provide a suitable candidate for several
reasons, including: its mainly regional and inter-regional character (sense of ownership by
coastal regions involved from its inception); its flexible and inclusive membership; the fact that
the decentralization process will then be much further advanced, if not complete and that its
members will have experience of practical lessons learned during coastal policy formulation.
13.
However, ICZMC would need to be significantly strengthened – in terms of status,
mandate and capacity – to move towards fulfilling this role. A number of changes to be
considered in the course of NACOMA (e.g. support through its component 1) would relate to:
 Ministerial/Parliamentary approval and endorsement of ICZMC’s purpose and mandate;
 An adequate legal and administrative status, powers and resources to go beyond basic
dialogue and facilitation functions;
 Membership from national and local levels of government;
 Building of in-house – or immediately accessible - coastal management expertise;
 Clear procedures to ensure transparency, participatory approaches and accountability.
14.
Through enhanced capacity building, training and strengthened enabled environment
(including implementation of the public awareness and communication strategy), NACOMA’s
second half is expected to create regional sub-ICZMC within the RDCC.
49
The ICZMC was endorsed by the four Regional Councils and received approval from the Ministry of Regional,
Local Government and Housing on May 3, 2001 and the Ministry for Environment and Tourism on September 21,
2001.
89
(iii) Project Management Unit
15.
The Project Management Unit (PMU) will be hosted by the ICZMC Secretariat based in
the Erongo Council offices. The PMU will report to the SC and will consist of (i) a full-time
Project Coordinator responsible for overall coordination and implementation; (ii) a full-time
Administrative Assistant; and (iii) a part-time M&E Specialist and two technical advisors for
coastal zone planning and management. Procurement and financial management functions will
be outsourced to reduce PMU costs and administrative requirements, but final arrangements are
subject to a detailed assessment before and during appraisal.
16.
The PMU mandate is to implement SC decisions, including delivery of funds to selected
activities.
Its main functions and tasks are related to:
 Operational Project coordination, cooperation and management (including EMP and PPP
implementation);
 Project monitoring, auditing and reporting, including budget matters;
 Development of annual work plan;
 Secretariat of SC.
(iv) Scientific Group on Coastal Biodiversity and ICZM
17.
Namibia has currently no formalized scientific coastal zone group of experts and
institutions to provide information and guidance. Therefore, stakeholders expressed the need to
formalize a Scientific Group (SG) by time of effectiveness to guide, among other tasks,
NACOMA implementation and facilitate access to and use of relevant data (BENEFIT, MET’s
own biodiversity knowledge base, etc.). The Project’s preferred approach is to channel scientific
input through existing structures as far as possible, avoiding excess cost or bureaucracy.
Potential members of the SG could be: NaLTER, NMN, NBRI, DRFN, GTRC, UNAM
(University of Namibia) and NatMIRC. It is proposed to nest this scientific group within
BENEFIT and/or the proposed BCC as this these have the same marine/coastal focus and he
overall opportunity to open up links to complementary research, resources and data in
neighboring countries.
18.
The SG would contribute at all levels of the NACOMA process by:
 Providing scientific input as requested by any NACOMA entity (SC, ICZMC, PMU), in
particular for development of coastal profiles;
 Assisting the PMU in screening candidate investments under component 3 for NACOMA
funding (e.g. assessment of environmental impact and benefits);
 Assisting with developing M&E indicators for a coastal zone management M&E system;
 Contributing to targeted capacity building efforts under component 2, in collaboration with
development planners and Technical Assistants.
19.
The figure 1 on the following page shows the Project’s implementation arrangements.
These arrangements will be reviewed carefully by mid-term review and adjusted (to simplify) as
needed. The implementation context at regional and local level is demonstrated in figure 2.
90
Figure 1: Project Implementation Arrangements
91
Figure 2: Implementation Context at Regional/Local Level
92
Flow of Funds (to be finalized at appraisal)
20.
The flow of funds arrangements for the Project will entail the operation of four bank
accounts as follows (see also Figure 3 below):
1. Two bank accounts to house the GEF/IBRD funds:
i.
A US$ dominated Special Account (SA) to be operated by the counterpart (NPC)
and held at the Bank of Namibia;
ii.
A Namibia $ dominated Project Account (PA) to be operated by the counterpart
(PMU) and held at a local commercial bank.
2. Two bank accounts to house the counterpart funds:
i.
A Namibia $ dominated ‘Counterpart Fund’ Account (CFA) to be held at a local
commercial bank to house funds dedicated by the counterpart (MET) to the
Project;
ii.
A Namibia $ dominated CFA to be held at a local commercial bank to house
funds dedicated by the counterpart (MRLGH) to the Project.
21.
IBRD will disburse the initial advance from the proceeds of the grant into the SA. Actual
expenditure there-from will be reimbursed through submission of Withdrawal Applications
(WAs) and against Statement of Expenditures (SoEs), which will be approved in accordance
with internal control procedures to be established by the Project Management Unit.
22.
Counterpart funds will be allocated through the normal Central Government budgetary
process, but in addition, actual cheques have to be raised and the amounts deposited in the CFAs
for the Project’s ongoing use. An initial advance from the Government will also be required.
This will be reinforced by VAT refunds which the Ministry of Finance agreed to credit direct to
the Project’s CFAs.
23. All four accounts should be in place by the time of effectiveness.
93
Figure 3: Illustration of the NACOMA Flow of Funds
MET
Grant
Account
NPC
MRLGH
1.Counter
MET
–
Special
Account
(USD)
Counter –
part Fund
Account
(NAD)
part Fund
Account
(NAD)
Project Account (NAD)
Comp. 1
Comp. 2
Comp. 3
Comp. 4
Agreed
Activit.
Agreed
Activit.
Agreed
Activit.
Agreed
Activit.
94
Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
This annex will be finalized at appraisal
95
Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
This Annex will be finalized at appraisal.
General
1.
Procurement for the Project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank’s
"Guidelines: Procurement Under IBRD Loans and IDA Credits" dated May 2004; and
"Guidelines: Selection and Employment of Consultants by World Bank Borrowers" dated May
2004, and the provisions stipulated in the Legal Agreement. The various items under different
expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the
Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for prequalification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the
Recipient and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least
annually or as required to reflect the actual Project implementation needs and improvements in
institutional capacity.
2.
Procurement of Works: Works procured under this Project would include: [Describe
the types of works]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s Standard Bidding
Documents (SBD) for all ICB and National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank.
[Indicate any special requirements specific to the Project.] [If the Project involves procurement
carried out by communities, indicate where details can be found in the Project Implementation
Manual or similar documents.]
3.
Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this Project would include :[ Describe
the types of goods]. The procurement will be done using the Bank’s SBD for all ICB and
National SBD agreed with or satisfactory to the Bank. [Indicate any special requirements
specific to the Project.]
4.
Procurement of non-consulting services: [Provide a general description of nonconsulting services to be procured under the Project and information on the bidding documents
to be used for the procurement.]
5.
Selection of Consultants: [Provide a general description of the consulting services from
firms and individuals required for the Project.] Short lists of consultants for services estimated
to cost less than $_______equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national
consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines. [If
applicable, provide any information regarding engaging universities, government research
institutions, public training institutions, NGOs, or any special organizations.]
6.
Operating Costs: [Describe the operating costs which would be financed by the Project
and procured using the implementing agency’s administrative procedures which were reviewed
and found acceptable to the Bank.]
7.
Others: [Describe if any special arrangements for scholarships, grants etc. ]
96
8.
The procurement procedures and SBDs to be used for each procurement method, as well
as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the [name the Project
Implementation Manual or the equivalent document.].
Assessment of the Agency’s Capacity to Implement Procurement
9.
Procurement activities will be carried out by [name of the Implementing Agency]. The
agency is staffed by [describe the key staff positions], and the procurement function is staffed by
[describe the staff who will handle procurement].
10.
An assessment of the capacity of the Implementing Agency to implement procurement
actions for the Project has been carried out by [name of the procurement staff] on [date]. The
assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the Project and the
interaction between the Project’s staff responsible for procurement Officer and the Ministry’s
relevant national unit for administration and finance.
11.
The key issues and risks concerning procurement for implementation of the Project have
been identified and include [describe the risks/issues]. The corrective measures which have been
agreed are [Describe the corrective measures].
12.
The overall Project risk for procurement is [give the risk rating].
Procurement Plan
13.
The Recipient, at appraisal, developed a procurement plan for Project implementation
which provides the basis for the procurement methods. This plan has been agreed between the
Recipient and the Project Team on [date] and is available at [provide the office name and
location]. It will also be available in the Project’s database and in the Bank’s external website.
The Procurement Plan will be updated in agreement with the Project Team annually or as
required to reflect the actual Project implementation needs and improvements in institutional
capacity.
Frequency of Procurement Supervision
14.
In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the
capacity assessment of the Implementing Agency has recommended [frequency] supervision
missions to visit the field to carry out post review of procurement actions.
Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
(a) List of contract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting:
97
1
2
Ref
.
No.
3
Contract Estimate
(Descriptio
d
n)
Cost
4
5
6
7
8
9
Procureme
nt
Method
P-Q
Domestic
Preferen
ce
(yes/no)
Review
by Bank
(Prior /
Post)
Expected
BidOpening
Date
Commen
ts
(b) ICB contracts estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and all direct
contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
2. Consulting Services
(a) List of consulting assignments with short-list of international firms.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ref. No.
Description
of
Assignment
Estimate
d
Cost
Selection
Method
Review
by Bank
(Prior /
Post)
Expected
Proposals
Submissio
n
Date
Comments
(b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above [fill in threshold amount] per contract and
single source selection of consultants (firms) for assignments estimated to cost above [fill in
threshold amount] will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
(c) Short lists composed entirely of national consultants: Short lists of consultants for services
estimated to cost less than [fill in threshold amount] equivalent per contract, may be composed
entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the
Consultant Guidelines.
98
Annex 9: Economic Analysis of Natural Resources of the Namib Coast50
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Background
1.
Namibia’s current and future coastal development scenario (increase in population,
industrial development) requires a sound basis for planning, management and investment
decisions, including an assessment of the resource base and its monetary and non-monetary
valuation. However, no economic analysis of the Namib Coast and its natural resources has been
performed yet, which provides this valuation.
2.
Recognizing this knowledge and planning gap, the MET has tasked a consultant to
undertake an initial environmental economic analysis during the NACOMA project preparation,
which estimates the economic values associated with the different natural resources of the Namib
coast. The findings of this analysis, together with the findings of an environmental economics
study undertaken by UNDP51, which focused on tourism and National PAs are summarized here.
The assignment results confirm the NACOMA Project design, and indicate the need for further
research and analysis, which have been added to the on-going preparation phase. The findings
will feed back into project implementation through linkages to the vision process and
development of a White Paper (component 1), targeted capacity building (component 2) and
sustainable use investments (component 3) The consultant report will be published and made
accessible to all stakeholders as part of knowledge management system.
Methodology
3.
The MET study’s basic valuation approach was to first identify value streams in line with
divisions among value types commonly used in the environmental economics literature. This
identification process involved gaining an understanding of the coast economy in general and
then the role of coastal resources in this economy through a literature search and discussions
with Namibian economists, government officials and others. Net Value Added was used as the
primary measure of the value of resources in line with previous environmental economics
research conducted by MET. This was complimented by analysis of other economic indicators,
notably employment. Resource rent information was also used to shed light on the distribution of
values. Quantification in the protected areas in Kunene and Hardap focused on tourism value as
the primary value generator in these areas.
Key Findings: the Value of Main Ecosystem Services on the Namib Coast52
50
For more information, see Van Zyl. 2004. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA)
Project: Economic Analysis of Natural Resources in Two of Namibia’s Four Coastal Regions: Karas and Erongo.
51
Turpie et al. 2004. Strengthening Namibia’s System of National Protected Areas: Economic Analysis and
Feasibility Study for Financing Namibia’s Protected Areas. Unpublished report to the Ministry of Environment and
Tourism.
52
Indicated figures are best viewed as broad aggregate indicators of value. Additionally, many of the values
identified are conflicting values or trade-offs. These trade-offs are described at length in the study paper.
99
4.
Coastal natural resources in Namibia have varied uses from direct consumption (e.g.,
fish, mariculture products, guano, shells, diamonds, natural gas and oil, salt and !nara) to the
appreciation of scenic beauty. Examples of identified values are summarized in Table 1,
followed by a further explanation.
Table 1: Examples of Coastal Values, their Spatial Distribution and the Employment Associated with
Renewable Coastal Resource Use (van Zyl, 2004)
Value Type
Spatial Distribution
Annual Value Estimate (N$ 2003)
Commercial
fishing
Whole coast, but focused on
Walvis Bay
N$2.526 billion in value added
including N$500 million in
resource rent
Mariculture
- Oysters
- Abalone
- Seaweed
Karas & Erongo
Guano production
Karas & Erongo
N$6.5 million in sale value
Shell harvesting
Erongo
Salt production
!Nara harvesting
Erongo
Erongo
Enough to allow subsistence wages
for 10 to 20 people
N$10.5 million in sale value
N$42,500 to N$105,000 in sale
value
Tourism
(nonangling and
angling)
Option
and
existence value
Whole coast. Still limited in
Sperrgebiet. Angling mostly
in Erongo
Whole coast
Ecosystem
services
Whole coast
- N$12 million in sale value
- N$525,000 in sale value
- N$1.25 million in sale value
N$300 million in value added
(incl. N$26 million for angling
tourism)
Donor contributions for marine
projects totaling N$100 – N$130
million over 7 years give tentative
indication.
Partially captured by all other
values as they rely on ecosystem
services
Number of
Jobs
8,700
- 85
- 15
- 25 full-time
& 50 part-time
38 people for 8
weeks
10 to 20
223 to 233
40 full time
and 175 on ad
hoc basis
5,525
(including
indirect)
N/A
N/A
5.
The fishing grounds off the Namibian coast are among the richest in the world making
Namibia an important player in the international fishing industry. The proclamation of a 200
nautical mile EEZ in 1990 provided a turning point for commercial fishing in Namibia after local
fish stocks suffered years of illegal over-exploitation by foreign vessels. The general perception
amongst MFMR officials is that current catch levels are likely to remain fairly stable as they
have over the last five years.
6.
Mariculture in the Namib coast includes the culture of oysters, abalone and seaweed with
operations in Lüderitz, Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. Aside from the expansion of existing
forms of mariculture, pilot rafts of scallop and clams have shown promising results as well as
rock lobster. The culture of hake, dusky cob and rainbow trout in coastal raceways or in the
ponds created by diamond mining is also thought to hold promise.
100
7.
Guano, which is prized as an agricultural fertilizer rich in nitrates, is harvested from four
guano platforms along the coast between Cape Cross and Walvis Bay and from islands off the
coast (mainly Ichaboe Island near Lüderitz – see map in Annex 17).
8.
Limited shell harvesting takes place on the Erongo coast, mainly between Walvis Bay
and Swakopmund. Shell harvesters do not earn more than a subsistence income, and the future
potential of shell harvesting seems limited in its current informal form. However, there may be
some potential for the expansion of craft making using shells.
9.
Namibia has the richest marine diamond deposits in the world, with an estimated reserve
of over 1.5 billion carats. The majority of the benefits of diamond mining go to large companies
and the central government. Local benefits mainly take the form of employment and training and
the installation of infrastructure particularly in Oranjemund. There is an uncertainty regarding
the lifespan of onshore mining, but current predictions indicate that this form of mining will
probably cease by 2030. Offshore mining has the potential to carry on beyond this, although
levels of uncertainty in this regard are higher.
10.
The Kudu gas field off the Namibian coast contains proven reserves of 1.4 trillion cubic
feet of relatively clean methane gas. As with diamonds, the majority of the benefits of natural gas
go to large companies, many of which with foreign shareholders and the central government.
Local benefits mainly take the form of employment and training and the installation of
infrastructure, particularly in Oranjemund.
11.
Namibian coast has the potential to yield oil. Various licenses are currently involved in
oil exploration off the coast that may result in finds. It is not clear what the potential is for
success, but the presence of gas and the coast’s relatively unexplored status are positive signs.
12.
Salt production in the Erongo Region takes place at 3 points along the coast. Coarse salt
is exported to chemical industries in South Africa while some salt is milled to produce table salt.
13.
!Nara, a leafless spiny bush bearing a melon-like fruit, has been harvested for centuries by
the Topnaar community of approximately 300 people for food and for oil (for edible, cosmetic or
medicinal purposes). Approximately 6 percent of the !nara harvested is consumed by Topnaar
community members and the remainder is sold mainly to buyers in South Africa. In recent years,
due to an interest increase in the plant’s health value, there has been an increase in the amount of
pips that are sold in Namibia. However, reduced flooding in the Kuiseb River delta, and changes
in harvesting rights, methods and patterns have resulted in a decline in the total volume of
harvests of !nara. Community leaders would like to see the formation of a cooperative in order to
ensure better coordination and sustainability of harvesting. This could then be used as a platform
for setting up beneficiation projects so that a greater share of the benefits of the !nara are kept in
the local community.
14.
The tourism sector is one of the fastest growing sectors in the Namibian economy, and
the Namib coast, in specific, offers opportunities for sightseeing, angling, swimming, bird
watching and adventure tours, among other activities. With regard to non-angling tourism,
research has shown that tourists travel to the Namib coast for the natural or wilderness
101
experience it offers, and if degradation was allowed to occur, tourists are likely to lose interest.
Non-angling tourism has been increasing steadily in Namibia and is most likely to continue
along with the global trend towards nature-based tourism. However, continued growth will be
dependent on how well the environment is maintained. The benefits of angling tourism tend to
be more localized when compared to uses such as mining, since local people have the
opportunity to offer accommodation, tours, curios, food and other consumables. The line fishing
resource for angling tourism is perceived to be declining as the numbers of recreational anglers
has increased and competition from commercial line fishing has become more significant.
Findings and Conclusion
15.
The primary sources of option values that would be associated with a well-managed and
maintained coastal zone are opportunities to sustainably harvest products that are consumed
directly and future tourism potential. The coastal zone contains special environments and
species, which are likely to have a definite existence value. Examples of these would be the
islands off the coast, bird species such as the Damara Tern and the internationally important
coastal wetlands (see Annex 18 and 19). These areas’ tourism potential has yet to be fully
realized.
16.
Coastal resource uses are not always complimentary and trade-offs need to be made
between them. Ultimately, all uses of coastal resources have the potential to impose net costs. In
other words, it is not possible to prove that one form of coastal resource use is, in all cases, better
than another. This tends to argue in favor of investment in enhancing the general management of
the coast as well as selected small-scale resource use opportunities that will promote sustainable
livelihoods. Specific management measures worth considering from an economic perspective
include (1) enhancing planning procedures and (2) ensuring the internalization of environment
costs.
17.
Adequate financial resources for the maintenance and management of coastal areas are
essential if their values are to be optimized. Currently the primary agencies with responsibility
for management in the coast are MET (protected areas), MFMR (marine ecosystems), the four
Regional Councils and the municipalities of coastal towns. Current annual expenditure levels for
the MET in the coast only allows for reactive management, i.e. dealing with problems as they
arise. MFMR expenditure on the management of marine coastal resources overshadows that of
the MET on land based coastal resources. Currently little donor funding is specifically linked to
MET environmental management along the coast while substantial funding supports the mandate
of the MFMR (including initiatives as the BCLME and BENEFIT).
18.
Namibia’s coastal natural resources are a substantial source of value regardless of which
measure of value is used. They form a critical part of the economy whether they are used to
support large-scale industrial activity such as diamond mining and commercial fishing or smaller
scale operations such as subsistence harvesting and tourism operations. They are distributed
across the entire coast and provide benefits at the national, local and regional levels in the form
of employment, taxes, training and direct revenue. As Integrated Coastal Zone Management
balances a wide range of ecological, social, legal, governance and economic considerations, vis a
vis co-management and community participation, NACOMA is providing the opportunity for the
102
sustainability of these natural resources and their benefits. Further, by disseminating the
economic potential behind conservation of the coast’s NR, it is envisaged that awareness
followed by a sense of ownership will be promoted, leading to financial sustainability of coastal
zone management in Namibia.
103
Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
(To be finalized at appraisal)
Safeguard issues and impacts associated with the Project
1.
Social. Following comments made during Project preparation regarding the possibility of
involuntary resettlement (OP 4.12) following the establishment of new protected areas, it has
been concluded that the recipient should prepare no process framework at this stage. This
conclusion was based on the following:
i. The purpose of OP 4.12 is largely served by the PPP (see Annex 20), which provides for full
and informed participation by all stakeholders, including minority groups, in the development of
management arrangements for the coastal resources, such as designation of new protected areas,
if any, and changes in the uses and restrictions of those that already exist.
ii. It is not certain whether the project will even include any activities that would necessitate a
process framework.
2.
It was further agreed that in the unlikely event where the Project includes such activities,
the PPP could be supplemented with additional elements of a process framework, specific to the
particular area in which access is to be restricted. These would consist of: (a) a process whereby
compensatory measures will be formulated and agreed on for persons whose livelihoods are
adversely affected; (b) grievance procedures; (c) legal/administrative procedures; and (d)
monitoring arrangements.
3.
To ensure that the intent of OP 4.12 is indeed carried out through the PPP, an additional
item will be built into the PPP and implementation arrangements (see Annexes 6 and 20). That
would be a grievance or appeals process, with an agency identified to receive appeals (the PMU),
in case there is a group of stakeholders that feels its interests are being curtailed by a restriction
on access, and that the additional elements of a process framework should be formulated and
agreed on. If the complainant will not be satisfied, he or she would then have recourse to a
disinterested agency that has responsibility for protecting the rights of citizens in the area. Bank
supervision should include a special effort to determine whether any such situations have
emerged and, if so, whether they have been properly handled according to OP 4.12.
4.
Environmental. The Project aims to have an overall positive and significant impact on
the environment by establishing a policy, regulatory and institutional framework for
environmentally sustainable growth and resource management and through on-the-ground
conservation activities that will largely focus on biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation and
sustainable use of prioritized ecosystems. These classes of eligible on-the-ground activities,
together with a list of ineligible activities, identified by stakeholders during project preparation,
indicate Project-funded activities that are likely to have no adverse impacts on the environment,
or minimal impacts that are site-specific, easy to mitigate, and technically and institutionally
manageable. However, as small-scale physical works may be funded by the Project, NACOMA
is classified as an environmental safeguard category "B" project. As a consequence, an EMP was
104
requested by ASPEN and prepared by the GRN to ensure that the Project’s on-the-ground
activities are carried out in line with World Bank EA Policy OP 4.01 and similar Namibian EA
requirements, and to ensure that all possible negative impacts are considered and mitigation
measures are spelled out prior to the implementation of any on-the-ground activities.
Namibia Environmental Assessment Process
5.
Environmental assessments in Namibia are at present guided by the Environmental
Assessment Policy of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, approved by Cabinet in August
1994. In the past, the majority of EAs have been undertaken for major infrastructure projects and
mining. Project level EA in Namibia follows a similar system to that found in most jurisdictions,
i.e. submission of proposals, questioning, screening, and if found required – environmental
assessment followed by conditions of approval (Environmental Management Plan or
Environmental Contract), monitoring of implementation and auditing.
6.
This Environmental Assessment Policy is planned to be enacted in the Environmental
Management and Assessment Bill, and work on its drafting began in 1996. Besides giving a
statutory effect to Namibia’s Environmental Assessment Policy, the Bill will establish general
principles for the management of the environment and natural resources, promote the
coordinated and integrated management of the environment, and establish appropriate
institutions to administer it. At present, the Bill has still not been submitted to Parliament, with
the main reason for the delay being a lack of consensus over the administration of the act.53
Measures taken by the GRN to address the Project’s safeguard concerns
7.
The GRN, specifically the MET, has gained experience with applying safeguard policies
for project development based on another recently approved project (the Integrated Communitybased Ecosystem Management – ICEMA Project), for which an Environmental and Social
Assessment and Management Plan, a Resettlement Policy Framework, and an Indigenous
Peoples Development Plan were prepared and disclosed by the MET. Adequate technical and
legal capacity and expertise exist in Namibia for developing mitigation and management plans,
as well as relevant environmental monitoring (at governmental and non-governmental level)
8.
The NACOMA EMP was developed by a local consulting firm for the GRN on the basis
of a preparatory workshop held in Swakopmund in August 2004 where eligible on-the-ground
activities were identified, a review of documents relating to the NACOMA Project and World
Bank policies, and consultations with key stakeholders from municipalities and regional
government on the coast. It consists of sets of criteria and guidelines that describe process,
indicators, roles and responsibilities for management, implementation and supervision of
physical activities in terms of their environmental integrity. The EMP also indicates the capacity
needed for these activities and budgetary implications, all of which have been integrated into the
Project’s design and financial plan.
9.
To ensure that activities will not have any negative environmental impacts, a transparent
process that includes a decision-support tree has been developed in consultation with Namibia’s
53
Peter Tarr and Jacquie Tarr, Drafts Situation Assessment: Namibia.
105
authority responsible for environmental assessments (Directorate of Environmental Affairs DEA) at the MET, through which proposed new activities should be screened for their
environmental safety if they do not trigger the Namibia EA Policy. The proposed process is
considered a workable solution. For activities, which will have triggered the Namibia EA Policy,
the National EA process will be used.
10.
The EMP will be managed by the NACOMA PMU in consultation with the Steering
Committee (see detailed Project implementation arrangements in Annex 6). EAs will be
undertaken by qualified contracted consultants. Environmental guidelines for specific Project
activities of component 3 will be implemented by the proponents of these activities.
11.
The EMP will become part of the M&E manual of the PIM and annual work plans, and
has been budgeted for under component 4.
Consultation and disclosure on safeguard policies
12.
The EMP was reviewed and approved by ASPEN, and is expected to be disclosed at the
World Bank InfoShop and in country by time of appraisal.
106
Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Planned
June 29, 2004
July 4, 2004
July 4, 2004
February, 2005
April 15-16, 2005
June 24, 2005
October, 2005
March, 2007
October, 2010
PCN review
Initial PID to PIC
Initial ISDS to PIC
Appraisal
Negotiations
Board/RVP approval
Planned date of effectiveness
Planned date of mid-term review
Planned closing date
Actual
June 29, 2004
June 18, 2004
December 16, 2004
March 7-18, 2005
X
X
X
X
X
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the Project:
 Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Government of the Republic of Namibia
 Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing, Government of the Republic
of Namibia
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the Project included:
Name
Mr. Timo Mufeti
Dr. Francois J. Odendaal
Title
PDF B coordinator
Managing Director
Mr. Jacob Oranje
Consultant
Mr. Mark Thornton
Consultant
Ms. Raquel Garcia
Consultant
Mr. Michael Thurland
Consultant
Ms. Clare Shine
Dr. Antje Burke
Mr. Hugo van Zyl
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
Mr. Francis Staub
Mr. Herman Cesar
Consultant
Consultant
Unit
EcoAfrica Environmental
Consultants
EcoAfrica Environmental
Consultants
EcoAfrica Environmental
Consultants
EcoAfrica Environmental
Consultants
COWI Consulting Engineers
and Planners
IUCN
Enviro Secience
Independent Economic
Researchers
AJH Environmental Services
Cesar Environmental
Economic Consulting
107
World Bank Staff
Christophe Crepin
Slaheddine Ban-Halima
Aberra Zerabruk
Steve Gaginis
Jonathan Nyamukapa
John Boyle
Vivian Nwachukwu-Irondi
Ronnie Hammad
Evarist Baimu
Nina Doetinchem
Gabriele Rechbauer
Ayala Peled
Beula Selvadurai
Task Team Leader
Senior Procurement Specialist
Lead Council
Finance Officer
Financial Management
Specialist
Senior Environmental
Specialist
Program Assistant
Senior Operations Officer
E T Consultant
Biodiversity Specialist
Environmental Economist
Biodiversity Specialist
Program Assistant
Bank funds expended to date on Project preparation:
1. Bank resources: USD 0
2. Trust fund
(TF038904): 42,935
(TF020392): 25,000
(TF050707): 310,000
3. Total: 377,935
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs:
1. Remaining costs to approval:
2. Estimated annual supervision cost:
108
Annex 12: Documents in the Project File
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
(To be finalized at appraisal)
A.
Project Implementation Plan
The Project Implementation Plan/Manual has been prepared by Mr. Timo Mufeti with support of
XX, and reviewed by XX as well as Quality Assurance Group.
The Project Implementation Manual includes XX.
B.
Bank staff Assessment
Written comments received prior to Concept Review, June 29, 2004, including Project team
responses:





Peer reviewers: Indumathie Hewawasam (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTES),
Anders Alm (Senior Environmental Specialist, MENA);
Marea Hatziolos (Senior Environmental Specialist, ENVGC);
Christopher Warner (Senior Environmental Specialist, AFTES);
John Boyle (Senior Environmental Specialist, ASPEN);
Kristine Ivarsdotter, (Senior Social Development Specialist, ASPEN).
Written comments received prior Quality Enhancement Review, December 13, 2004:




Anders Alm (Senior Environmental Specialist, MENA);
Marea Hatziolos (Senior Environmental Specialist, ENVGC);
John Boyle (Senior Environmental Specialist, ASPEN);
Roberto Nino (Senior Counsel, LEGAF).
Written comments received prior Decision Meeting, XX, including Project team responses:
TBC
C.
Other
Mission reports
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Preparation mission Aide Memoire and BTOR, April-May 2001
Program preparation mission Aide Memoire, November 2001
Preparation support mission Aide Memoire, April-May 2002
Preparation support mission Aide Memoire, November-December 2002
Preparation support mission Aide Memoire, November-December 2003
Multi purpose mission Aide Memoire, July, 2004
Appraisal mission BTOR and Aide Memoire, XX, 2005
109
Bank internal milestones in Project development process:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PDF-A Grant Agreement, March 5, 2002
PDF-B Grant Agreement, December 31, 2002
Minutes of Concept Review Meeting, June 29, 2004
Minutes of Quality Enhancement Review, December 13, 2004
Amendment to PDF-B Grant Agreement (Supplement), January 5, 2004
Minutes of the Decision Meeting, XX, 2005
Agreed Minutes of Negotiations, XX, 2005
Board presentation, XX, 2005
Documentation of fiduciary requirements:
XX
GEF milestones in the Project development cycle:
Proposal for PDF A submitted to GEF Secretariat, 5/25/2000
GEF approval of PDF A resources, 6/1/2000
Proposal for PDF B submitted to GEF Secretariat, 10/11/2001
GEF approval of PDF B resources, 1/24/2002
GEF approval of Pipeline Entry, 1/24/2002
Proposal for supplemental PDF B submitted to GEF Secretariat, 10/26/2004
GEF approval of supplemental PDF B resources 12/1/2004
GEF approval of Work program Entry, February 14, 2005
GEF CEO Endorsement PAD,
PDF funded reports
EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants. 2004. Review of policy and legislation pertaining to
coastal zone management (project preparation document).
EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants. 2004. Analysis of the Institutional Capacity in the
Namib Coast Regional Councils in Relation to the Namibian Decentralisation Process Recommendations for Institutional Strengthening and Capacity Building (project preparation
document).
EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants. 2004. Rapid Assessment of the Development Plans,
Biodiversity Conservation Projects and Socio-economic Situation of the Namib Coastal Regions
(project preparation document).
Van Zyl. 2004. Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management (NACOMA) Project:
Economic Analysis of Natural Resources in Two of Namibia’s Four Coastal Regions: Karas and
Erongo (project preparation document).
NACOMA Project Preparation Workshop, Swakopmund Namibia, 11-13 August 2004
(workshop proceedings).
110
Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Difference between
expected and actual
disbursements
Original Amount in US$ Millions
Project ID
FY
Purpose
IBRD
Total:
0.00
IDA
SF
0.00
GEF
0.00
Cancel.
Undisb.
0.00
0.00
0.00
Orig.
Frm. Rev’d
0.00
0.00
NAMIBIA
STATEMENT OF IFC’s
Held and Disbursed Portfolio
In Millions of US Dollars
Committed
Disbursed
IFC
IFC
FY Approval
Company
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
1997/01
Namibia Life
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
1996/98/02
Novanam
11.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
Total portfilio:
11.03
Loan
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.81
0.00
0.00
7.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.23
0.81
0.00
0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment
FY Approval
Company
2000
AEF Gateway Hotl
Total pending committment:
Loan
0.00
0.00
Equity
Quasi
Partic.
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
111
Annex 14: Country at a Glance
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
N a m ibia
S ubS a ha ra n
A f ric a
1.8
1,840
3.3
688
450
306
2,411
1,390
3,352
2.0
2.0
2.4
2.5
1.0
1.2
..
32
42
58
..
77
17
112
112
113
..
33
46
105
..
58
37
86
92
80
..
49
69
30
11
81
13
111
111
110
19 8 2
19 9 2
2001
2002
1.9
2.9
3.2
2.9
..
..
..
..
21.6
51.7
7.0
23.4
23.7
44.3
13.8
30.4
23.7
44.3
13.8
28.4
1.0
..
..
..
..
..
1.7
..
5.6
..
..
..
2.1
1.8
8.3
..
..
..
2.1
0.0
3.5
..
..
..
19 8 2 - 9 2 19 9 2 - 0 2
2001
P O V E R T Y a nd S O C IA L
2002
P o pulatio n, mid-year (millio ns)
GNI per capita (A tlas metho d, US$ )
GNI (A tlas metho d, US$ billio ns)
Lo we rm iddle inc o m e
D e v e lo pm e nt dia m o nd*
Life expectancy
A v e ra ge a nnua l gro wt h, 19 9 6 - 0 2
P o pulatio n (%)
Labo r fo rce (%)
M o s t re c e nt e s t im a t e ( la t e s t ye a r a v a ila ble , 19 9 6 - 0 2 )
P o verty (% o f po pulatio n belo w natio nal po verty line)
Urban po pulatio n (% o f to tal po pulatio n)
Life expectancy at birth (years)
Infant mo rtality (per 1,000 live births)
Child malnutritio n (% o f children under 5)
A ccess to an impro ved water so urce (% o f po pulatio n)
Illiteracy (% o f po pulatio n age 15+)
Gro ss primary enro llment (% o f scho o l-age po pulatio n)
M ale
Female
GNI
per
capita
Gro ss
primary
enro llment
A ccess to impro ved water so urce
Namibia
Lo wer-middle-inco me gro up
KE Y E C O N O M IC R A T IO S a nd LO N G - T E R M T R E N D S
E c o no m ic ra t io s *
GDP (US$ billio ns)
Gro ss do mestic investment/GDP
Expo rts o f go o ds and services/GDP
Gro ss do mestic savings/GDP
Gro ss natio nal savings/GDP
Current acco unt balance/GDP
Interest payments/GDP
To tal debt/GDP
To tal debt service/expo rts
P resent value o f debt/GDP
P resent value o f debt/expo rts
(average annual gro wth)
GDP
GDP per capita
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
2.8
-0.2
..
2002
Trade
Do mestic
savings
Investment
Indebtedness
2002-06
3.5
1.3
1.5
2.4
0.6
-4.5
2.7
0.9
7.1
4.2
2.4
8.6
19 8 2
19 9 2
2001
2002
Namibia
Lo wer-middle-inco me gro up
S T R UC T UR E o f t he E C O N O M Y
(% o f GDP )
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
9.7
42.3
11.5
48.0
10.5
31.1
15.1
58.4
10.0
30.9
10.8
59.1
10.0
30.9
10.8
59.1
..
..
..
57.9
35.1
66.3
58.5
27.8
54.3
58.5
27.8
54.3
2001
2002
19 8 2 - 9 2 19 9 2 - 0 2
(average annual gro wth)
A griculture
Industry
M anufacturing
Services
4.7
0.8
0.5
2.8
2.8
2.6
3.3
3.8
-10.5
6.1
5.9
3.1
-3.7
5.5
6.3
3.0
..
..
..
..
4.4
4.9
6.8
5.2
-1.2
1.1
25.5
3.9
18.8
2.7
-13.0
15.4
G ro wt h o f inv e s t m e nt a nd G D P ( %)
60
40
20
0
-20
97
98
99
00
GDI
01
02
GDP
G ro wt h o f e xpo rt s a nd im po rt s ( %)
20
10
0
P rivate co nsumptio n
General go vernment co nsumptio n
Gro ss do mestic investment
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
97
98
99
00
01
02
-10
Exports
Imports
112
Namibia
P R IC E S a nd G O V E R N M E N T F IN A N C E
19 8 2
D o m e s t ic pric e s
(% change)
Co nsumer prices
Implicit GDP deflato r
G o v e rnm e nt f ina nc e
(% o f GDP , includes current grants)
Current revenue
Current budget balance
Overall surplus/deficit
19 9 2
2001
2002
Inf la t io n ( %)
20
14.7
15.3
17.7
3.1
9.5
10.8
11.3
11.1
15
10
5
0
20.8
-6.6
-16.6
33.9
1.2
-5.5
32.0
1.6
-3.9
31.6
1.8
-4.3
19 8 2
19 9 2
2001
2002
97
98
99
00
GDP deflator
01
02
CPI
TRADE
(US$ millio ns)
To tal expo rts (fo b)
Diamo nds
A ll minerals except diamo nds
M anufactures
To tal impo rts (cif)
Fo o d
Fuel and energy
Capital go o ds
E xpo rt a nd im po rt le v e ls ( US $ m ill.)
983
221
495
175
1,033
..
..
..
1,311
450
274
318
1,389
297
82
461
1,142
524
194
266
1,325
283
78
439
1,205
559
196
271
1,368
293
81
454
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
19 8 2
19 9 2
2001
2002
1,095
1,357
-262
1,369
1,788
-418
1,316
1,591
-276
1,363
1,613
-250
-157
..
17
452
0
342
32
280
4
Current acco unt balance
18
50
66
62
2
Financing items (net)
Changes in net reserves
..
..
-57
7
-36
-29
-16
-45
0
N/A
1.1
46
2.9
223
8.6
298
10.5
19 9 2
2001
2002
162
0
0
264
0
0
103
0
0
Expo rt price index (1995=100)
Impo rt price index (1995=100)
Terms o f trade (1995=100)
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
96
97
98
99
00
Exports
01
02
Imports
B A LA N C E o f P A Y M E N T S
(US$ millio ns)
Expo rts o f go o ds and services
Impo rts o f go o ds and services
Reso urce balance
Net inco me
Net current transfers
M emo :
Reserves including go ld (US$ millio ns)
Co nversio n rate (DEC, lo cal/US$ )
E X T E R N A L D E B T a nd R E S O UR C E F LO WS
19 8 2
(US$ millio ns)
To tal debt o utstanding and disbursed
..
IB RD
..
IDA
..
To tal debt service
IB RD
IDA
..
..
..
..
0
0
..
0
0
..
0
0
Co mpo sitio n o f net reso urce flo ws
Official grants
Official credito rs
P rivate credito rs
Fo reign direct investment
P o rtfo lio equity
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
0
..
..
..
..
0
..
..
..
..
0
..
..
Wo rld B ank pro gram
Co mmitments
Disbursements
P rincipal repayments
..
..
..
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C urre nt a c c o unt ba la nc e t o G D P ( %)
8
6
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
113
Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Context
Ecological importance of the Namib Coast
1.
The Namib Coast, isolated between the ocean and the escarpment, is considered to be a
constant island of aridity surrounded by a sea of climatic change and, thus, has remained a
relatively stable center for the evolution of desert species. Exceptional features of the Namibian
coast at the ecosystem level include the (i) fog belt due to the cold marine upwelling along the
coast on more than 180 days of the year (considered as the life-blood of the Namib desert,
providing enough moisture for a number of highly-adapted animal species to survive and being
an important factor for the remarkably high biodiversity); (ii) climatic transition belt dividing the
coastal area into a northern area receiving summer rainfall and a southern area receiving winter
rain (the narrow strip of land within this transition belt is the most arid area in Southern Africa
with a mean annual rainfall of 2 to 20 mm); and (iii) the Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem with the highest primary production rates in the world and one of the most important
renewable natural resources of the country (shared with Angola and South Africa, the BCLME
supports vast population of fish species and the inshore marine environment provides migration
and nursery habitats for marine organisms). In summary, Namibia's coastal ecosystems harbour
unique features and biodiversity in the form of endemic plants, invertebrates, amphibians,
reptiles, mammals and birds - found in the globally recognised hotspots, i.e. the southern Namib
centre of endemism in the Sperrgebiet (covering almost the entire Succulent Karoo Biome), the
coastal wetlands around urban settlements and the nearshore islands around Lüderitz (see Annex
17 for a map of the coast and Annex 18 for a description of the biodiversity hotspots).
Socio-economic importance of the Namib Coast (see Annex 9 for a more detailed assessment)
2.
The Namib coast provides essential direct ecosystem services (i.e. consumptive use
values such as harvesting and non-consumptives such as eco-tourism) as well as indirect
ecosystem services (such as carbon sequestration). The direct ecosystem services and resources
form the basis of the three main economic coastal sectors: fishing including aqua- and
mariculture, mining of diamonds, and tourism. The fastest growing sector in the coast is the
tourism industry, which is also expected to have multiplier effects in terms of employment
creation, greater contribution to total economic activity, rural development and poverty
reduction. Farming or other agricultural activity is almost precluded as a livelihood option due to
the hyper-arid ecosystem of the coastal desert. These sectors form the basis of the coastal zone’s
significant economic growth and prominent industrial development. In addition, a high density
of urban agglomerations with increasing populations demonstrates the importance of strategic
development of Namibia’s coastal area.
Human pressure
3.
Over the past years, as the Namibian coast is put under rising human-made pressure for
resource-based economic and urban development (see tables 4 and 5 in Annex 18 for
threats/root causes analysis), there has been evidence that destruction of habitat and
unsustainable harvesting of natural resources have increased, predominantly posing threats to
biodiversity and in the end to economic development in the coastal areas.
114
Project linkages
4.
The Project design will address the identified threats and root causes by strongly
supporting a participatory multi-stakeholder approach for defining a common vision for coastal
development based on mainstreaming biodiversity conservation into production landscapes and
by providing targeted capacity building and on-the-ground investments. NACOMA’s design is
fully in line with the coastal and marine priorities identified in Namibia’s National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) and supporting local efforts to implement the Agenda 21. It
is consistent with guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity, the GEF’s Operational
Program 2 on Marine, Coastal, and Freshwater Ecosystems, GEF’s Strategic Priority 2
‘Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors’ as well as GEF’s Strategic
Priority 1 ‘Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas’ (see section A.3).
Project Rationale
5.
The main focus of the NACOMA Project is to provide long-term conservation of unique,
globally significant biodiversity of the Namibian coastal zone by assisting the local, regional and
national Governments and other stakeholders such as the private sector and NGOs/CBOs to
mainstream biodiversity conservation into their on-going development planning and
management processes, in particular within the framework of underway decentralization process.
Resource-based economic development along the coast can only be maintained and potentially
increased if put within a sustainable framework providing for adequate and consistent policies,
legislation, institutions and capacity at planning and management level.
Baseline Scenario54
Scope
6.
Since independence, the Namib coast, although acknowledged by national stakeholders
for its unique ecosystems and globally significant biodiversity, has not received adequate
protection (including control and use restrictions) by the national government (mainly MET).
National limited conservation efforts, led by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, have
focused more on in-land biodiversity assets than on coastal biodiversity.
7.
These insufficient coastal conservation efforts stem from the unsuitable geographic
location of coastal biodiversity, which has prevented them from becoming independent habitats
for conservation and weak human, technical and financial capacity of national line ministries and
other stakeholders to protect and enforce biodiversity conservation, which have led to the current
situation of fragmented protection, a lack of a strategic enabling policy and legal approach to
mainstream biodiversity into coastal development, and limited and isolated coastal knowledge.
8.
Together with increasing threats on the coast and its resources, mainly from
unsustainable practices related to tourism, fishing and mining (in some cases with no control and
54
The scope of the baseline has been set as follows: temporally by the life of the Project (5 years); spatially by the
boundaries of the Namibian coast line and by definition provided in Annex 1; and thematically by the Project
components and outcomes.
115
minimal environmental restrictions even in protected areas) and the unsuitability of land use
options in existing development planning, it is predicted that without any GEF support, the
coastal zone, its associated biodiversity and fragile arid ecosystems, will increasingly deteriorate
and left to the threats and pressures (Annex 18).
9.
Overview of main economic activities in the coast:
o Fishing: Over-harvesting and marine pollution
o Aquaculture: Major mariculture expansion and other types of marine cultivation
o Tourism: Major growth area with need for regulation. Coastal carrying capacity
for major tourism destinations (volume and location of tourist facilities,
adjustments for ecological sensitivity, infrastructure provision and water
management) must be defined
o Mining (including off-shore) of diamonds and other minerals: Major growth area
in certain parts of the coast. Existing policy and legislation is relatively weak in
regard to effective environmental management and should be urgently reviewed.
In particular the up-coming high number of mine closures will require a solid
policy and funding for rehabilitation
o Gas and oil: Explorations have just started and are in early development stages
o Transport: Expansion of shipping routes; new harbor developments, e.g.
expansion of Walvis Bay and Lüderitz port
o Infrastructure: Increased urban pressure leads to need for further urban
development (housing, waste facility, water and energy supply, roads, etc.)
10.
Without the Project’s intervention, the current development patterns, which feature
insufficient or no conservation of coastal biodiversity and lack of integration of biodiversity
conservation in the production landscapes and coastal development planning, and the challenges
related to weak management of the existing coastal protected areas will result in irreversible
biodiversity loss and mainstreaming opportunities.
11.
Any limited conservation support under the baseline scenario - if confirmed even without
GEF intervention - will be restricted to a few biodiversity sites around one or two main coastal
towns without any opportunity for mainstreaming biodiversity conservation and without being
built on principles for sustainability as to link the economic, social and environmental issues.
Further, the baseline scenario would be insufficient to ensure effective conservation and
collaborative management of the inter-linked biodiversity hotspots - taking a coastal and marine
ecosystem approach. It would also be insufficient to provide scientific data on the economic
value of the use of coastal biodiversity, to ensure an effective involvement of all stakeholders at
national, regional and local level in strategic planning and management of coastal issues and to
move forward with the establishment of coastal regulation and enforcement in sites of high
biodiversity importance as well as to enable a multi-channel communication network on coastal
biodiversity and management issues.
12.
The Baseline scenario would also most likely include a continuation of a slow
decentralization process in the country (see Annex 19). Without the GEF intervention,
decentralization support to line ministries, regional and local governments would not be used to
116
pilot the coastal biodiversity related issues in MET’s and other line ministries decentralization
action plans (DAP), and more importantly would not be supported by an enabling framework,
capacity-building efforts, human and financial resources to mainstream biodiversity conservation
into national, regional and local development planning and management. Without NACOMA’s
additional support for the development of line ministries’ DAPs, it is unlikely that the proposed
environmental planning function at the coastal RC level will be formalized and filled in the
short-term. Thus, cost-effective replication benefits for this function in other regions throughout
the country would not occur.
13.
As a conclusion, without NACOMA, the baseline would be continued weak and
insufficient biodiversity conservation, increased economic growth and development along
with population increase, separation of local, regional and national economic development
planning from biodiversity protection and conservation management, all leading to
persistent degradation of high-value, unique biodiversity and natural resources and lastly
loss of opportunities for sustainable coastal zone management.
Benefits
14.
The benefits under the baseline scenario would focus on the basic maintenance of the
coastal ecosystems through limited, non-mainstreamed, and uncoordinated environmental
planning, principally at local, but not national, regional or even sub-regional level. The baseline
would confer decreasing global benefits through limited and insufficient protection to a few sites
with biodiversity conservation value.
GEF Alternative
Scope
15.
Conservation of biodiversity through mainstreaming coastal and marine biodiversity
conservation into local, regional and national development planning and implementation has
been identified by the key stakeholders in the country as the only sustainable option for coastal
development and biodiversity conservation in Namibia (see B.4 on lessons learned and Annex 18
and Annex 2).
16.
It is the overarching rationale behind this GEF alternative together with targeted
investments on the ground and it clearly stands at the centre of NACOMA’s Project design
(through four inter-related Project components (i) Policy, legal and institutional framework for
the Sustainable ecosystem management of the Namib Coast; (ii) Targeted capacity-building for
mainstreaming biodiversity conservation; (iii) Targeted investments for biodiversity
conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming, and (iv) Project Management and Performance
Monitoring) and NACOMA’s implementation arrangements (see Annex 6).
17.
Global experience with similar coastal zone management projects (which aim to support
sustainable development in coastal area) has shown that biodiversity conservation and
sustainable use of natural resources are best managed in the long term if addressed as early in the
local and regional development processes as possible. The NACOMA Project builds on this
117
experience by complementing timely the operational move in the current decentralization
process (see Annex 19) and by piloting the transfer of responsibilities related to planning,
management and monitoring of coastal biodiversity conservation and their mainstreaming
opportunities in relevant production landscapes from national to regional and local level from the
outset.
18.
The GEF alternative would lead towards the development and implementation of broadbased development plans for the coastal zone where biodiversity issues are truly integrated and
reflected. Vertical and horizontal coordination would lead to a better connection of development
and biodiversity conservation (i.e. supportive to realize a ‘Big Picture’, even transfrontier, map
of coastal conservation areas), with sustainable biodiversity benefits to all role players. The
Project would enhance the knowledge base for sound coastal ecosystem management and
decision-making including monitoring and evaluation for sustainable long-term tourism, mining
and fishing practices. To further achieve this goal of mainstreaming, national, regional and local
players would be provided with technical, financial and institutional support to develop such an
enabling policy framework, adequate skills and targeted capacity. This will be achieved through
the full involvement of national, regional and local government, not only one or two line
ministries, the private sector and other civil society stakeholders and the implementation of a
detailed Project Participation Plan (see Annex 20).
19.
The results of the alternative scenario would be the conservation of biodiversity and
mainstreaming into enhanced national, regional and local development planning and
management for the Namib coast that is sustainable and in line with national and global
biodiversity objectives and strategies. This process is truly innovative in Namibia and in the
sub-region and essentially incremental to what is general practice in coastal zones elsewhere.
Importantly, the lessons generated under this Project would help the broader mainstreaming of
biodiversity considerations in other sectors and regions in Namibia as well as other countries.
Costs
20.
Over the five year Project period, the total expenditures associated with the Baseline
Scenario are estimated to be US$ 55.79 million. The total expenditures associated with the GEF
Alternative are estimated to be US$ 60.69 million
21.
The Project would involve expanded and new activities as follows:
Component 1:
Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem
Management of the Namib Coast (Total: US$ million 11.19 - GEF: 0.91 US$ million)
22.
Main output: A collaborative vision for sustainable use of the Namib Coast shared by all
stakeholders as a driving force for coastal biodiversity conservation of high global importance as
described in a Coastal Management White Paper (NACOWP).
23.
Up to now, the approach to regulation, control and management of coastal resources has
been hampered by the lack of consensus on a future vision for the coast among the many
stakeholders, unclear and overlapping institutional mandates for natural resource management,
118
inconsistent and outdated legislation and insufficient data and information on the coastal zone.
This component will bring the stakeholders together in a partnership and seek to reach consensus
on a common vision for the management of the Namib coast. The vision will be based on the
idea that the coast is part of a transfrontier ecosystem (the "Big Picture" vision) that permits
industrial development, recreation, mining and other activities without compromising the
environment and biodiversity in specific. Building on the needs and benefits for mainstreaming
biodiversity conservation into production landscapes and local, regional development, the
component will promote the development of a comprehensive coastal zone policy through a
participatory process and stakeholder consultation. This component would involve removal of
root causes to unsustainable and non-mainstreamed biodiversity management at the Namib Coast
through clarification of institutional mandates, review of financing needs and suitable
mechanisms for coastal biodiversity and thus improved coordination and inter-agency
collaboration between Regional Councils, national level line ministries, local authorities, private
sector and others. The GEF alternative would fund a series of stakeholder consultations and
workshops to facilitate the process of developing a joint coastal vision, which will guide the
mainstreaming of biodiversity efforts at regional and local level. The coastal zone vision would
lead to a coastal white paper – the basis for the first Namibian coastal policy. The component
would also facilitate the preparation of regional coastal profiles, which will provide stakeholders
with socio-economic and environmental information necessary for the integration of
conservation along the coastal areas into regional development planning and management
decisions and the provision of targeted support to the MET in EIA to accelerate the adoption and
implementation of the EMB.
Component 2:
Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and
Biodiversity Conservation (Total: US$ million 21.79 - GEF: 1.52 US$ million)
24.
Main output: Regional Councils, Local Authorities, MET, MME, MFMR, MAWRD,
MWTC and other role players enabled to undertake functional and strategic coastal biodiversity
conservation/environmental planning and management.
Baseline: MET: routine monitoring activities, HQ and regional staff, communication and travel
costs, equipment and vehicle rpocurement and maintenance for Hq and regional use.
25.
The component would focus on strengthening the capacities of the coastal Regional
Councils, Local Authorities, MET, MME, MFMR, MAWRD, MWTC and other role players to
play a significant role in the process of mainstreaming and national, regional and local
development (and land-use) planning, co-ordination and monitoring.
26.
This expanded component would involve removal of institutional and capacity barriers to
biodiversity mainstreaming through support for MET’s decentralization efforts by piloting
coastal biodiversity management in at least two coastal regions. It would involve targeted
training and capacity building for identified key players on planning, regulations, management
and monitoring of coastal ecosystems. More specifically, it would contain detailed evaluation of
biodiversity values and important ecological characteristics of the coastal zone, use of GIS for
zoning and land-use planning & monitoring purposes and adequate conservation measures for
identified coastal biodiversity hotspots. Satellite images would be used to allow for farther
reaching interpretation of status and trends of the coastal ecosystems including natural
119
disturbances and anthropogenic stress factors. Capacity building at regional and local level
would also build a basis for active involvement of local population and visitors around identified
hotspots. Resources would also be provided to set up a monitoring system, in conjunction with
similar efforts by MFMR and MET to provide for monitoring of the biodiversity status of
identified hotspot habitats and species across the coastal ecosystem and an early identification of
potential threats (using the NAMETT). The GEF alternative would also support the development
and implementation of a public awareness campaign and knowledge sharing action plan which
will increase knowledge of issues relating to coastal biodiversity conservation and reinforce
sustainable use of natural resources, in support of the mainstreaming of biodiversity into local
and regional development issues.
Component 3:
Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity
Conservation, Sustainable use and Mainstreaming
(Total: US$ million 26.36 - GEF:
1.52 US$ million)
27.
Main output: To financially support implementation of biodiversity conservation and
management in priority conservation areas as described in management plans.
28.
This activity provides expanded on-the-ground investments in biodiversity conservation
efforts in areas with high biodiversity conservation potential to improve their biodiversity status
(see Annex 18 and map in Annex 17).
29.
This component would comprise core activities to address site-specific protection and
management and the nomination of Namibia’s first Marine Protected Areas around Lüderitz. A
phased approach would be taken over NACOMA’s lifetime to support MET and MFMR to agree
on the basic approach and numbers of MPAs, delimiting provisional boundaries and identifying
issues and management objectives before developing management plans and launching the
necessary legislative process. In order to introduce functioning biodiversity conservation
management in priority coastal areas, demarcation and gazetting of sites would be supported. A
consultative site specific management plan for the areas and their buffer zones (in particular of
relevance for area around Walvis Bay and Luderitz – see map in Annex 17) would be developed
based on recommendations for the appropriate institutional and financial mechanism emerging
from the participatory process under component 1 and based on built capacity under component
The component would also provide support for limited infrastructure and equipment for
management purposes.
Component 4:
Project Management Support and Performance Monitoring
US$ million 1.35 - GEF: 0.95 US$ million)
30.
(Total:
Main output: Successful Project implementation.
31.
This component will provide complementary resources for an effective and timely
Project management, coordination and the set-up of a Project performance monitoring system,
which are conditions for successful Project implementation.
32.
This expanded support will include Project management, reporting, monitoring and
evaluation for all Project activities.
120
Benefits
33.
The GEF increment will enable further beneficial outcomes beyond those already
specified in the baseline scenario. In addition to the Baseline benefits, incremental benefits to the
global community include
 Harmonization of fragmented coastal policies and legislation;
 Partnerships will increase and provide opportunities to better collaborate and
communicate the exchange of good practices; and
 Creation of coastal biodiversity knowledge base accessible to all key stakeholders
 Development of coastal biodiversity monitoring and information system accessible to
key stakeholders (harmonized data collection and effective data dissemination will be a
valuable capacity for national, regional and local decision-makers;
 Strengthened institutions at national, regional and local level through partnership
building, targeted capacity-building and continued stakeholder dialogue;
 Replicable experience from piloting MET’s coastal biodiversity decentralization efforts
in one or two coastal regions to other regions;
 National, regional and local government’s improved capacity for planning, management
and monitoring of coastal priority conservation areas;
 Effective conservation of globally important coastal habitats and species as part of
priority biodiversity hotspots/conservation areas including targeted investments;
 Investments at hotspot level are more targeted at removing the root causes of threats,
thus improving the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of management endeavours;
 Ownership will increase through enhancement of public participation in management of
coastal resources.
121
Incremental Costs (see Table 1)
34.
The total expenditure under the Baseline Scenario is estimated to be US$ 55.79 million
while the total expenditure under the GEF Alternative is estimated to be US$ 60.69 million. The
incremental expenditures (costs) under the GEF Alternative are therefore approximately US$ 4.9
million.
122
Table 1: Incremental Cost Analysis
Components
Category
Component 1: Policy,
legal and institutional
framework for
sustainable ecosystem
management of the
Namib Coast
Baseline
Expenditure Domestic Benefit
(US$
million)
Finalization of draft tourism policy.
10.28
Improved urban planning through multistakeholder dialogue process.
Global Benefit
Enactment of Environmental Management Act
to provide for environmental regulation,
compliance and enforcement measures of
relevance for globally significant habitat and
species protection.
Finalization of Parks and Wildlife Management
Bill and PA regulations, Policy Framework for
Concessions in Proclaimed Protected Areas
(tourism, concessions in Skeleton)
MET’s capacity enhanced for environmental
Economics and Natural Resource Accounting
GEF
Alternative
11.19
Support for line ministries’ Decentralization
Action Plans
Improved coordination and inter-agency
collaboration among all key players through
clarified institutional mandates (providing also
for more cost-effective use of national, regional
and local budget)
Coastal vision development process leading to
efforts harmonizing competing land-uses and
development interests and potential increasing
benefits from coastal zone developments.
Coastal biodiversity embedded in a coherent
policy, legal and institutional framework as
outlined in the coastal white paper
(NACOWP) and piloted through
decentralization process in at least 2 out of the
4 coastal regions.
Opportunities to mainstream coastal and
marine biodiversity considerations into
national, regional and local development
planning and management.
Coastal profiles providing economic, social and
environmental baseline data for regional
development planning and management.
Component 2:
Targeted Capacity-
Increment
Baseline
0.91
20.27
Limited capacity for line ministries, RC and LA
staff on development planning, management, and
123
monitoring as well as broader environmental
issues.
Building for Coastal Zone
Management and
Biodiversity conservation
Ad-hoc collection of marine biodiversity data
without coherent dissemination strategy.
GEF
Alternative
21.79
Limited MET routine monitoring for coastal PA.
Improvement of inter-ministerial and inter-agency Enhanced but still limited capacity for coastal
cooperation at all levels.
ecosystem management at regional level.
Strengthened institutional and technical capacity
within coastal RCs and LAs and awareness for
effective environmental and biodiversity
planning and management will benefit the
national, regional and local institutional and
human capacity through training, exchange of
lessons, and involvement of international,
national, regional and local experts in the Project.
Mainstreaming biodiversity and sustainable
use of coastal resources into national,
regional, local development planning and
management processes.
Information generation for policy
development to achieve mainstreaming
Enhanced monitoring and information
exchange through development of coastal
biodiversity m&e system.
Strengthened national, regional and local
knowledge and capacity in assessing biodiversity Incorporation of global biodiversity
values and assets as well as identifying and
elements and promotion of integrated
prioritizing biodiversity conservation areas.
planning and management presented in
targeted communication campaigns to
increase public awareness and enhance
appreciation of coastal biodiversity
conservation among policy makers.
Coastal biodiversity data will be shared by all
stakeholders and will be lined to socioeconomic and other data. This will enable true
mainstreaming.
Component 3: Targeted
investments in critical
Increment
Baseline
1.52
24.84
Limited, fragmented and insufficient
conservation and management of few areas of
Limited and insufficient conservation of
globally important biodiversity hotspots in the
124
ecological importance with very moderate
funding within potentially existing outdated
management plan frameworks.
coastal ecosystems in
biodiversity conservation,
sustainable use and
mainstreaming
Limited infrastructure investments and
equipments, such as fences, roads, and water
holes in PAs.
GEF
Alternative
26.36
Scoping studies for new PAs.
Improved coordination between national,
regional and local level including participatory
planning process, strengthened capacity to
manage coastal biodiversity at all levels.
Enhanced and innovative experiences with
sustainable use practices and biodiversity
conservation.
coastal area.
Purchase of limited amount of land to enlarge
potential protection area of Sperrgebiet and
infrastructure.
Support to nominate World Heritage Site.
Effective conservation of identified coastal
and marine biodiversity hotspots (habitats and
species) including the creation of Namibia’s
first MPAs.
Improved capacity for management of
biodiversity and support for local authorities
and urban communities involvement in
conservation activities at buffer zones.
Additional human and financial resources being
committed at national, regional and local level to
more rigorously identify and address coastal
Replicable experiences from potential
biodiversity issues.
sustainable use proposals attracting private
investors for ecologically sound tourism and
other forms of sustainable use of NR.
Component 4:
Project Management and
Performance Monitoring
Increment
1.52
Baseline
0.40
Limited operational functioning of Erongo’s
Regional Council as Secretariat of the ICZMC.
GEF
Alternative
1.35
Strengthened capacity of Erongo’s Regional
Council staff through participating in PMU’s
handling.
Efficient administration of GEF
Project funds, coordination of
implementing institutions, and
evaluation of progress towards
improved protection and management
of globally significant ecosystems and
species.
Incorporation of national and global
biodiversity indicators in Project M&E
125
mechanism.
Total for All Project
Components
Increment
0.95
Baseline
55.79
GEF
Alternative
Incremental
Expenditure
60.69
4.9
126
35.
A number of complementary activities on the Namib Coast constitute the baseline situation. The NACOMA Project is designed to
complement, reinforce and expand elements of the baseline scenario (see Annex 2). The baseline amount is US$ 55.79 million.
Table 2: Baseline Funding to NACOMA
Baseline
US$
Source of funding / donor
m
GRN (line ministries and local authorities):
MET
12.97 GRN
MFMR
8.59 GRN
MME
0.93 GRN
MRLGH (basically budget for 4 coastal RC as no separate
5.7 GRN
budget for RC exists)
Erongo Regional Council (ICZM Secretariat)
0.4 GRN
LA Walvis Bay
3.8 GRN
LA Swakopmund
3.4 GRN
LA Henties Bay
0.25 GRN
LA Luderitz
0.3 GRN
Total GRN
36.34
Projects and programmes:
BENEFIT program
0.4 Multi-donor (NORAD, GTZ,
FSP/France)
Finnish Decentralization Support project
1.3 Finland
French Decentralization and IT Support to RC project
0.8 France
GTZ Biodiversity and Desertification implementation
2.0 Germany
support
Japan Sustainable Development Fund (JSDF)
1.95 Japan
 Rural Poverty Reduction Support Program
6.0 EU
 Upgrading Namibia Maritime & Fisheries Institute at
Walvis Bay
6.0 EU
Correspondence to NACOMA
Components
Component 1, 2 and 3
Component 1, 2 and 3
Component 1, 2 and 3
Component 1,2 and 3
Component 3 and 4
Component 1, 2 and 3
Component 3
Component 3
Component 3
Component 2 and 3
Component 1 and 2
Component 1 and 2
Component 1 and 2
Component 2
Component 1, 2 and 3
Component 2
SKEP: Succulent Karoo biodiversity assessments and
management tools project
Total donor-supported initiatives
Total baseline funding
1.0 Multi
19.45
55.79
Component 2
Annex 16: STAP Roster Review
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
REVIEW FOR THE GEF PROJECT - NAMIB COAST BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
AND MANAGEMENT
STAP REVIEWER: David H Vousden, Environment and Development Advisor and Project
Evaluator
DATE:
1.7.2005
Terms of reference / Biodiversity
This independent review has been commissioned by the World Bank (contact person: Christophe
Crepin). The standard terms of reference for Biodiversity Focal Area Independent Technical
Review of GEF have been followed.
GENERAL PROJECT OVERVIEW
The proposed ‘Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project’ (NACOMA)
clearly demonstrates the need for management of the coastal resources in Namibia. From the
project document it is apparent that while much of the Namib coast is currently within a protected
area or park, levels of protection vary, and habitats of global significance as well as biodiversity
hotspots, remain without legislative protection or enforcement, and there are currently no MPAs on
the mainland coast or nearshore islands. The Project aims to secure these global significant habitats
and hotspots through a process of improved management and capacity building linked in with
improved policies and legislation for conservation of coastal natural resources.
Identified impending threats to coastal biodiversity and resources include: urbanisation and
unregulated tourism; fishing and mariculture; other extractive industries such as mining; increasing
unemployment in coastal towns and; increasing public access. Some coastal regions were
previously offered a form of ‘protection’ from excessive human intervention by the access
restrictions imposed by mining companies. While the restrictive access limited the benefits that
could be gained by the local communities, these areas will be particularly vulnerable to exploitation
as the mining industry declines, and the areas become publicly accessible. In this respect the project
is most timely, very necessary and clearly serves to improve the security of significant global
environmentally-sensitive areas.
At present there is currently little or no environmental legislation that specifically tackles coastal
and marine related issues. The draft Environmental Management and Assessment Bill (EMB),
which legislates for Environmental Impact Assessments, has yet to be finalised. Furthermore, while
management responsibility for much of the coast is nationalised, sectoral roles and responsibility
remain poorly defined and fragmented under the different line ministries. There is a lack of
environmental and socio-economic data on the coastal regions and little regional input into planning
and controlling activities on coastal land.
129
The globally important coastal resources of Namibia are therefore at significant risk of degradation
and unsustainable exploitation and there is a need for an integrated coastal zone management
approach to ensure their conservation and sustainable use. The NACOMA project development
(and global) objective is ‘Conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in
coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia strengthened’.
The proposed NACOMA project design intends to provide a coherent and timely intervention that
builds on the findings of the NBSAP and other strategies and projects. The proposed project appears
to be particularly timely in terms of:
1. the changing nature of the economic activities in the coastal zone which pose an increased
threat to coastal resources and biodiversity hotspots, namely the rapidly increasing tourism
industry, uncontrolled urbanisation, as well as the large fishing industry and decline in
mining activities and;
2. the pending process of governmental decentralisation, which offers the opportunity for
clarifying national, regional, local and sectoral roles responsibilities and for implementing
new legislation and integrated / co-ordinated ways of working.
The process of decentralisation has begun, but it has been slow and is yet to be fully implemented.
The NACOMA project is therefore attempting to implement a coherent ICZM approach alongside
the decentralisation of government control over coastal resources. This is an immense task to
undertake. Evidence from other coastal management studies does suggest, however, that
management objectives are more likely to be met when they are implemented early in the planning
process. The NACOMA project therefore stands to benefit from implementation during this period
of transition in the governance structure. This is assuming that there is sufficiently strong
Government commitment and support to the ICZM concept and to the overall concept of
decentralisation and adoption of a more integrated and intersectoral approach to resource
management. Background information within the text and annexes seems to support this
commitment.
At this present junction in time, in the absence of a decentralised government, there are two routes
by which Namibia could attempt to ensure the future conservation and sustainable use of their
coastal and marine resources through ICZM. The first option would be to attempt a solely top-down
approach, to develop and maintain a purely national strategy to manage coastal resources. The
second option would be to attempt only a bottom up, small-scale approach, to develop more locally
specific coastal management policies, as explored during the Erongo region ICZM project.
Both these options may however fail to ever achieve the coherent management of coastal and
marine resources. The first option may fail to capture the subtle differences in management and
governance needs along this extremely long and biologically diverse stretch of coast. The second
option may result in small fragmented projects that fail to provide a consistent, overall approach to
coastal and marine resource management and biodiversity conservation.
The proposed NACOMA project does appear to be suggesting an appropriate balance of both topdown and bottom-up approaches that can occur alongside the decentralisation process, and could
result in a good balance of both national and regionally specific management policies and laws.
130
The NACOMA project aims to incorporate the entire coast of Namibia, which is necessary to
maintain the integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems, and will use the 4 existing coastal regions
as the basic management units. The project is also aiming to promote and sustain linkages with the
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME) programme, which provides the broader
biogeographical context for the project, and may assist in attempts to address transboundary issues.
This is an important consideration and it would be valuable to enhance the description within the
Project Document of how these linkages would be maintained and through what form of
coordination mechanism.
The NACOMA Component activities propose to address the required linkages and capacity needs at
the national, regional and local levels, and at the interface between these levels, and between the
different sectors, to ensure the successful implementation of ICZM on a sound regional basis. This
again is an immense task to undertake, but should be achievable if there is a strong Steering Group
and project implementation is phased as is suggested.
Indeed, Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) is usually viewed as an iterative process that
consists of 7 key stages that are repeated as part of an ongoing learning process. The NACOMA
project addresses the majority of these key stages in Component 1 (Data collection and research;
Analysis; Strategy Formulation, and Plan Formulation) and Component 3 (Plan implementation).
Component 2 and Component 4 address the specific technical issues to support the process (e.g.
capacity building and project management). Each component seems to address the root cause of
biodiversity loss, as outlined in Table 5.
Component 1 (Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management
of the Namib Coast) assesses the national policy, legislation and framework requirements, and
implements the use of regional Coastal Profiles.
One of the outputs of Component 1 is a coastal management white paper. From Annex 3 it is
proposed that a draft of this document will be completed in Year 3 and final documents will be
approved and published by end of Project. The development of such a coastal management white
paper should be iterative, and run for the duration of the project cycle and beyond (or have review
mechanisms inherent in its development and implementation strategy) so as to enable any lessons
learnt from regional and local activities to be captured and transferred into recommendations for
legislation where necessary.
Component 2 (Targeted Capacity Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity
Conservation) appropriately addresses issues of awareness raising, training, including a needs
assessment, based on the new institutional roles defined from the outputs of Component 1. This
component should contain a sub-component and provide training on Environmental and Socioeconomic Impact Assessment.
Component 3 (Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation,
Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming) addresses on the ground activities, the development of MPAs,
management plans, and co-management.
Component 4 deals with the project management and evaluation. While the PMU will be based in
the Erongo region, it is critically important that efforts are made to ensure that activities do take
place in each of the 4 coastal regions during the project. Hopefully strong links between the ICZM
Committee (with its Regional membership) and the Steering Committee will help to ensure full
131
representation of regional issues and to capture activities and deliverables at the regional level.
Component 3 will be crucial to delivering real reforms and improvements at the regional and local
level.
The collation of broad scale, geographically explicit biophysical, socio-economic and governance
data within each of the regions should be initiated as part of the regional Coastal Profiling exercise,
proposed in Component 1. The identification of data gaps and information requirements will help
focus the specific areas of further work needed in each of the regions.
The data for each region could be used in a GIS, to provide a useful management tool for
identifying gaps in protection, as well as potential areas of conflict with resource users and local
communities. More detailed maps and management plans, and GIS for specific management areas
could then be developed once the target areas had be identified during Component 3.
KEY ISSUES
Scientific and technical soundness of the project
As a result of this Project, enabling conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,
including those related to mainstreaming into coastal management and development planning at the
national, regional and local levels, should be improved, and a strategic approach should be put in
place to address root causes of biodiversity loss and coastal degradation.
1. Is there sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the project a sound
scientific base?
The project is well presented in this respect. It provides good scientific justification and background
and addresses key economic and environmental issues that are relevant to the baseline and the
proposed alternative. It supports its justification by a logical progression of explanations and
discussions. These include a review of the root causes and threats to biodiversity followed by a
discussion of the government’s strategy toward sustainable development of the coastline (including
listing the specific policy and institutional sector issues related to mainstreaming of coastal
biodiversity). The Project Document then explains the rationale for the Implementing Agency’s
involvement before entering into the actual Project Description.
2. Have all the threats to the ecosystem been considered?
This has been addressed very effectively under the section entitled ‘NACOMA’s Contribution to
Address Threats & Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss’ and the associated Table 5 which present the
Root Causes to Biodiversity Loss and Contribution of NACOMA Project (per Component). This is
a very helpful discussion and the table provides an excellent summary of how the project would
undertake specific activities to address threats and root causes.
3. Does the type of ecosystem management proposed require further research?
No. There is plenty of documentation, best practices and lessons available on both ICZM and MPA
development and management as is envisaged within the NACOMA project. The trick is in
applying it to the specific needs of Namibia, and particularly integrating it into Namibia’s current
132
decentralisation process. This will be a challenge but in this respect the project is most timely and
extremely necessary.
4. Is there a need to develop indicators to achieve the objectives?
1.1
Annex 3 provides a Results Framework and Monitoring table, which includes a realistic set
of indicators for monitoring the objectives and deliverables from the project itself. This
should prove valuable to the Mid-Term and Terminal Project Evaluators. Component 2
addresses Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity
Conservation and has a sub-component on development of a Biodiversity Monitoring and
Evaluation Mechanism. This sub-component will involve the review of existing M&E
systems, assessment of data and information gaps and needs and the development of a costeffective, accessible and feasible method for a coastal biodiversity M&E system linked to
national environmental monitoring efforts in conjunction with the coastal profiles. It would
be advisable for the project to develop M&E indicators as early as possible in its
implementation.
5. Will appropriate monitoring be put in place?
Yes, this is covered above under the response to 4.
6. Will the approach taken in the project proposal achieve the objectives of conserving
biodiversity?
Yes, if the project can achieve its objectives to incorporate integrated coastal zone management and
to develop a sustainable and well-managed MPA network this would be seen as a significant
contribution to conserving biodiversity at the national, regional and global level.
7. What are the risks and constraints associated with the project?
One risk (as with many GEF projects) must lie with the need for national commitment and
ownership, and particularly government support. However the project addresses these risks within
the text.
8. Is there any area of weakness or any gaps in the project?
One area of weakness initially related to whether there would be sufficient linkage and coordination
with the GEF ‘Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem’ project. However, the final project
document recognises the need for close coordination with the present BCLME programme as well
as a possible second phase. The linkages will extend to the level of Steering Committee
representation. The Document also clearly indicates the direct coordination between the two
projects in the development of the NACOMA Project Document. The NACOMA project is highly
complementary at the national level to the regional objectives of the BCLME programme.
9. Are there any controversial aspects about the project?
Two areas of concern, which could be controversial, relate to fishing and mining, activities which
are such important components of the national economy, but both of which could impact on the
objectives of the project by way of threatening effective coastal management and the maintenance
133
and enforcement of MPAs. It appears to be inherent within Component 1 of the Project that these
concerns would be addressed. The objective of this component is to fill the current gap for
mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation and management into policy, legal and institutional
structures affecting the development of the coastal zone. The concern here is that these two
activities would hold a much higher priority within government policy than coastal zone
management, and could go relatively unchecked with potentially damaging consequences. Annual
reviews of the project and the Mid-term and Terminal Evaluations will need to assess this very
specifically in view of the potential risk that these two economic activities will take higher priority
than ICZM.
10. Does the project introduce incentives that may lead to over-harvesting (in the case of a
sustainable use project)?
No. This is not applicable to this project as such. In any case, the project would almost certainly aim
to provide measures that control and sustainably manage any related harvesting processes.
11. How will the drops in revenue as a result of conservation measures be compensated?
Actual reductions in revenue as a result of the conservation measures are not expected. There may
be some effects on long-term development that may impact specific revenue intake over the shortterm, but the longer term objectives and deliverables of the project should provide a more
sustainable landscape for natural resources, which should therefore act to protect long-term
revenues rather than damage them.
12. Are there legal instruments aspects that should be dealt with?
These have all been addressed within the project design and outputs, specifically under Component
1 on Policy, Legal and Institutional Framework for Sustainable Ecosystem Management
13. How will the model of sustainable use outlined in the project be developed?
Through the development of a more integrated approach to coastal zone management and coastal
zone resources, and through the development of a more effective and sustainable system of MPAs.
14. How effective will the proposed model be in the local situation?
Hopefully it should prove to be very effective. The important consideration with the NACOMA
project is that it is addressing a vital need through this proposed model inasmuch as the country is
going through a decentralisation process for governance. This project is therefore very timely and
should create a model example of ICZM under such circumstances. Much will depend on political
will and national support/ownership as well as the development of sustainable strategies for ICZM.
15. Is there evidence that the project offers the best long-term solutions?
Yes, inasmuch as the solutions required need to be very pertinent to the current changes in
governance and the project sets out a clear roadmap for tackling this problem in what is a fairly
unusual and unique situation. There will almost certainly be some best practices and lessons
available from this project which may be transferable to other pertinent situations.
134
Identification of global environmental benefits
One weakness in the Project Document is that there is no specific section which presents the reader
with the global benefits that can be expected from this project. There is some incidental mention or
passing reference to these benefits scattered throughout the text. A GEF project should have a
specific discussion of the expected global benefits. The Incremental Cost Assessment does have a
section on the incremental benefits to the global community. However, this tends to highlight the
incidental benefits at a national level more prominently. It is recommended that the Project
Document should include a brief section on expected Global Benefits so as to meet GEF eligibility
criteria.
Does the project fit within the context of the goals of GEF
The project clearly states how it meets GEF criteria and objectives under OP2, how it acts as a
vehicle to meet WSSD and Millennium Development Goal requirements, and how it follows
guidance from the Convention on Biological Diversity. Further, the Project responds to GEF's
crosscutting and biodiversity as well as capacity-building strategic priorities as outlined in its
Strategic Business Plan FY04-FY06. In line with GEF’s Biodiversity Strategic Priority 2
(Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Sectors), the Project will facilitate the
mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation within production systems that may threaten
biodiversity (mainly tourism, mining, fisheries) by fostering broad-based integration of biodiversity
conservation within the country’s development agenda. In line with GEF’s Biodiversity Strategic
Priority 1 (Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Areas), the Project will facilitate biodiversity
conservation through the expansion and rationalization of the National Protected Areas on the coast
by means of the establishment of new Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and their embedment in
national and local legislation, as well as through capacity-building and targeted investments for
improved PA management.
Regional Context
The project corresponds to the Africa Region’s strategic directions for coastal and marine
environmental management, as it acts to remove barriers to conservation of fragile coastal and
marine ecosystems through adaptive management, learning and information sharing, strengthening
the institutional core and improving the quality of life of local communities. The project also
corresponds to elements of the NEPAD (New Partnership for Africa’s Development) Environment
Initiative which targets priority interventions such as coastal management for protection and
utilization of resources to optimal effect, environmental governance for securing institutional, legal,
planning, training and capacity-building requirements, and a structured and fair financing system
for sustainable socio-economic development. Other major elements of NEPAD are good
governance and decentralization, which are seen as standing at the root of sustainable development.
Replicability of the project
The project intends to use lessons learned in one coastal region for support in another coastal
region. To this effect, a replication plan would be prepared after 30 months and reviewed by all key
stakeholders. This plan would identify the main lessons learned and requirements to ensure that the
135
outputs and outcomes of the Project could be used in other regions. The lessons and best practices
from the NACOMA project can also be shared with neighbouring countries and transferred to other
GEF and non-GEF projects where appropriate.
Sustainability of the project
Institutional, financial, environmental and knowledge sustainability are all addressed in detail
within a specific section of the document and provide realistic and pragmatic discussions on this
topic. This section also addresses sustainability through partnerships.
SECONDARY ISSUES
Linkage to other focal areas
The project has no significant linkage to other GEF focal areas except through its compatibility to
the BCLME International Waters programme BCLME programme has very limited funding
available for biodiversity conservation activities at the national level. The NACOMA Project fits
very well as a compliment at the national level to the BCLME programme that has a geographic
focus mostly from the high water mark (HWM) seawards. The NACOMA Project will build and
expand on BCLME programme’s experiences gained in Namibia.
Linkage to other programmes and action plans at the regional or sub-regional level
The project document provides information on major related projects financed by the Bank and/or
other agencies within Annex 2. It also gives specific information about selected interventions,
explains their linkages to NACOMA, and defines how the NACOMA Project will build on previous
experience gained through such interventions, and how it will feed information back where
relevant.
Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects
There are no obvious damaging environmental effects or consequences from this project. The
additional beneficial effects for the environment would include a general improvement in
governance and management of environmental issues (including non-marine) which would
inevitably arise through re-structuring, reform, decentralisation and integration within responsible
agencies, as well as a more effective participatory process.
Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project
The project ensures that Biodiversity aspects are incorporated into each sector (tourism, fisheries,
mining and urban development) policies and plans at national, regional and local levels.
Furthermore, Annex 20 outlines the goals, scope and methods for NACOMA project participation.
It clearly identifies how the overall concept of stakeholder and public participation runs through
every component of the project.
1. Are there provisions for the establishment of appropriate lines of communication?
136
Component 2 addresses
Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and
Biodiversity Conservation and has a sub-component for Coastal Biodiversity Knowledge
Management. This sub-component will enable stakeholders to develop and make best use of
appropriate communication tools and channels based on a sound communication strategy and action
plan, including feedback loops for intersectoral, vertical and international sharing of lessons and
best practices.
2. Is there a plan for facilitating the flow and exchange of technical information between
communities and stakeholders?
Throughout the Project preparation process, NACOMA has sought to facilitate ownership and
initiative by national, regional and local stakeholders through the ICZMC, public consultations and
information dissemination. Further, NACOMA has been cooperating with the follow-up initiative
of the pilot DLIST (Distance Learning Information Sharing Tools), which has been used actively by
Project stakeholders during the preparation process as an information platform for documents.
3. Are the participatory schemes adequate?
Yes. A detailed Public Participation Plan will be included in the Project Implementation Manual
and integrated in all operational activities (including costing and monitoring). The project aims to
support the participation of a broad range of stakeholders in development of the country’s coastal
zone policy, and one of its stated global objectives is the building of capacity and awareness among
stakeholders in coastal regions related to integrated coastal zone planning, management and
monitoring.
4. Have conflict issues been dealt with?
The main potential conflict issues would probably be with fisheries and mining stakeholders.
Component 1 deals with the policy, legal and institutional framework for sustainable ecosystem
management. This component will be based on a highly participatory approach, involving
stakeholder groups in multiple consultations and meetings as identified in the Project’s Public
Participation Plan (outlined in Annex 20). The project specifically aims to involve stakeholders
from the private sector and trade in the project implementation process.
Capacity building aspects
1. Has adequate attention been paid to capacity building aspects?
Current coastal zone management approaches in Namibia lack technical and financial capacity and
a clear political and functional mandate. NACOMA will strengthen this entity substantially through
a strong enabling environment, targeted capacity building and targeted membership. Component 2:
Targeted Capacity-Building for Coastal Zone Management and Biodiversity Conservation This
component aims to fill the capacity gap at local, regional and national level in support of
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use including mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity and
resources into development planning and management. Taking into account the results from subcomponent 1.2 (clarification of institutional mandates), and based on a detailed training needs
assessment, this component will define the scope of institutional strengthening and thematic
137
capacity building needed at various institutional levels, while using partnerships with other
initiatives for cost-effective and mainstreamed training actions
2. Is there sufficient human capacity to tackle the issues addressed in the project?
Component 2 will provide a substantial training effort in an attempt to address the inevitable
shortage in human capacity. This is noted above under 1 and is clearly defined in the detailed
project description in Annex 4.
Innovativeness of the projects
In which respect are the approaches of the project innovative?
The project is particularly innovative in that it proposes to link its implementation to an on-going
process of decentralisation and use the latter to assist the project in undertaking any necessary
reforms in governance, policy and institutional arrangements as may be necessary to achieve
effective and sustainable ICZM and an effective network of operational MPAs.
RECOMMENDATIONS ARISING FROM STAP REVIEW
The following represents a list of areas of concern identified by the STAP Review (with responses
and explanations of how these have been addressed by the project development process):
Issue 1. The Project Document needs a brief section which explains clearly the Global Benefits
which are expected to arise from a successful project
Response. A section describing clearly the global benefits of a successful project has been added to
the Brief under section B ‘ Project Description’. Further, the project’s annex on biodiversity assets,
threats and root causes for biodiversity loss, the ICA, the global objective and its KPIs and the
explanation of the rationale for GEF involvement also contribute to the understanding of the
Project’s global benefits.
Issue 2. It would be advisable for the project to develop M&E indicators as early as possible in its
implementation.
Response. M&E indicators are currently being developed as part of the Project’s M&E Manual to
be included in the Project Implementation Manual.
Issue 3. The long-term success of the proposed Project will, in part, depend on the successful
decentralisation of the main line ministry, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). This
inevitably constitutes a project risk. The project document does however outline various other
projects that are supporting the decentralisation process. There will need to be clearly developed
and defined linkages within the project management and implementation strategy (even at the
Steering Committee level) to these other initiatives.
Response. The Annex 19 on Decentralization describes associated projects to support the
decentralization process. Strong coordination during preparation phase has been taken place
(participation in NACOMA workshops from decentralization support projects, efforts to ensure
138
consistency in proposed support to MET and at regional level, etc.). At the SC level, representatives
from projects are not foreseen but MRGLH’s leading role is expected to avoid any information gap
and to promote full complementarity.
Issue 4. Assessment of the current effectiveness of the existing protected areas should be carried out
at both the start and the end of the project in order to provide a measure of project success.
Response. The initial assessment (at start of the project) of effectiveness of existing Protected Areas
is part of UNDP’s PA project preparation activities using the Namibian Management Effectiveness
Tracking Tool (NAMETT). The results will be shared with the NACOMA Project. In order to make
sure that management plans are well implemented, an annual review will be undertaken by trained
staff from the PA by using an adapted version of the NAMETT. Further, MET is aiming to build a
comprehensive biodiversity M&E system where all information would be consolidated and
managed.
Issue 5. As ICZM is an iterative process, the proposed Project will need to be fairly plastic, and be
able to monitor and evaluate progress, and accommodate and incorporate changes as necessary.
Thus one of the functions of the Steering Committee would be to review and amend as appropriate
any activities and associated financial arrangements to address this requirement for dynamic
flexibility.
Response. We agree with this statement (see above).
Issue 6. The development of the coastal zone management White Paper should be seen as a more
iterative process, possibly by including mechanisms for review and amendment so as to capture any
lessons and best practices developed through and by project activities.
Response. The Project will address this concern by having a participatory and staged development
of the White Paper, by first developing a draft White Paper (‘Green Paper’ or equivalent) by end of
year 3, followed by expert-led development of draft White Paper, approval by the Government and
publication by the end of the Project. Throughout this process and the Project’s lifetime, the Green
Paper and then the White Paper will be reviewed by experts, stakeholders and the general public
and amended as to capture lessons and best practices developed through and by Project activities.
The detailed process and methodology will be finalized at appraisal.
Issue 7. GIS would provide a useful management support tool and help in the presentation of policy
advisory documents. GIS would help to identify gaps, priority hotspots, areas of conflict, etc.
Furthermore, once certain target areas for investment had been identified through Component 3, a
more detailed GIS approach could be taken to provide enhanced mapping in support of more
detailed management plans.
Response. We fully agree. Component 2 will provide for training in GIS and component 3 will
support a GIS approach for data collection and management including mapping.
Issue 8. It is not clear whether there is a ‘role-over’ function for the Steering Committee after the
project finishes. This is often useful as a means of objective sustainability but may not be
appropriate in this case in view of the intended strengthening of the ICZM Committee at the
regional level. However, consideration might be given to a long-term role for the Steering
139
Committee (or part of it) at the senior policy level to provide continuity. It may be possible that it
could form the core of a future integrated resource management committee and thereby ‘cement’
the memory of project steering and policy/executive decisions. However, the danger of creating
unnecessary bureaucracy is recognised and should be taken into consideration.
Response. It is anticipated that the NACOMA Project would enable (most likely by end of the
Project) the strengthened ICZMC to become the lead entity for coastal and marine management at
national and regional level. Thus, the SC’s temporary function for CZM issues would be transferred
to the enlarged ICZMC structure. We will consider a continued national ‘champion’ post-project.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STAP REVIEW
This is overall a generally well-prepared and credible document in support of a very timely and
eligible project initiative. The document contains an enormous amount of supportive detail. In this
respect perhaps the overall size of the documentation might be a minor criticism but this is balanced
by the wealth of information available to the reader. The project itself is very justifiable and
certainly fits GEF criteria for eligibility. The aims and objectives are well-targeted and the
components and activities are correctly focused. Much depends on national commitment and
government support, which probably represents the greatest potential risk for the project. This has
been addressed within the Project Document text.
The Reviewer applauds the project developers for the enormous effort that has clearly gone into
producing a quality document and has no hesitation in recommending adoption of this project
document proposal by GEF on the basis of its scientific and technical merit.
DHV/050107/STAP1
140
Annex 17: MAPS
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
IBRD 33701
141
Annex 18: Biodiversity Assets, Threats and Root Causes for Biodiversity Loss and Proposed
Interventions
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
The annex 18 is structured as follows:
1.1. Biodiversity assets of the Namibian coast
1.2. Coastal biodiversity from a regional perspective
1.3. Threats to coastal biodiversity
1.4. NACOMA’s contribution to address threats and root causes of biodiversity loss
1.1. Biodiversity Assets of the Namibian Coast
1.
Stretching along 1,572 km from the Kunene River in the north to the Orange River in the
south (see Annex 17), the Namib Coast is an arid area home to two globally important biomes:
(i) The Namib Desert runs along the entire length of the coast, extending beyond the Orange River
into the northwest corner of South Africa known as the Richtersveld and beyond the Kunene River
into the southwest corner of Angola. It borders to the East on the Namib Escarpment, which forms a
natural barrier running along almost the entire coast. With a high level of biological specialization
and endemism, the Namib Desert is one of the oldest in the world with more than 80 million years
of age, boasting a large number of species with highly adapted survival strategies. The coastal
Namib Desert biome is characterized by an unusual climate. Despite an extreme aridity (a mean
annual rainfall of 2 to 20 mm), there is presence of a thick fog due to the cold marine upwelling
along the coast more than 180 days per year. This coastal fog is the life-blood in the Namib and is
an important factor contributing to the remarkably high diversity of animal life, providing a crucial
source of water for many plants and animals. Due to its high level of biological specialisation and
endemism, the Namib Desert is listed by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) as a habitat type that may have potential for World Heritage nomination.55
(ii) The Succulent Karoo biome is the most important botanical area in Namibia in terms of
biodiversity and is unparalleled by any other arid region on earth. The Succulent Karoo is home to
about 5,000 higher plant species, nearly 40 percent of which are endemic, and thus the number of
specially protected species is extremely high. It has the richest succulent flora in the world,
harbouring about one-third of the world’s approximately 10,000 succulent species. It is also a center
of diversity and endemism for reptiles and many invertebrate taxa. With the richest succulent flora
on Earth, high diversity of bulbs, a centre of diversity for reptiles and various invertebrate groups
and supporting a variety of mammals and birds, the Succulent Karoo is a biodiversity hotspot 56 and
the Sperrgebiet in southern Namibia is the only wilderness area of the biome. Some 1,038 flowering
plants have been recorded in the Sperrgebiet alone.57 The Sperrgebiet flora comprises nearly a
quarter of the entire flora of the country on barely 2.5 percent of the country’s land surface – a
remarkable concentration of plant diversity and, considering the arid conditions, unrivalled in other
55
IUCN, 2004. The World Heritage List: Future Priorities for a Credible and Complete List of Natural and Mixed
Sites. April 2004, pp 1-19.
56
Myers, N., R.A. Mittermeier, C.G. Mittermeier, G.A.B. da Fonseca, and J. Kent. 2000. Biodiversity Hotspots for
Conservation Priorities. Nature 403, pp 853-858.
57
Burke, A. and Mannheimer, C., 2004. Plant Species of the Sperrgebiet (Diamond Area 1). Dinteria 29, pp 79-109.
142
desert areas in the world.58 The Sperrgebiet is not only characterized by high levels of plant
diversity, but also remarkable endemism on species and higher taxonomic (genus) levels. The
Sperrgebiet can boast a minimum of 45 species of terrestrial mammals, 110 bird species, well over
90 residents and migrant sea- and wetland bird species as well as almost 100 species of reptiles and
amphibians.59 Such is the natural and cultural importance of the area that includes the Sperrgebiet
that the nomination of a World Heritage Site has been proposed.
2.
The coast supports further several internationally important coastal wetlands that provide
important feeding grounds to a large number of migratory wading and seabirds, such as the Kunene
River Mouth, Cape Cross Lagoons, Mile 4 Salt Works, Walvis Bay Wetlands, Sandwich
Harbour, Lüderitz Lagoon and the Orange River Mouth. The wetlands at Walvis Bay, which
include the Kuiseb estuary, extend over some 35 to 40 km2 and support migratory birds as well as
more than half of southern Africa’s flamingos.60 It is thought to be the most important coastal
wetland in southern Africa in terms of bird diversity and also possibly one of the three most
important coastal wetlands in Africa.61 Sandwich Harbour is a 5 km2 wetland fed at least partially
by sub-surface freshwater and supports some 70,000 birds. It is southern Africa’s single most
important coastal wetland for migratory and resident birds.62 The Orange River Mouth is a
Ramsar site rated as the sixth richest coastal wetland in southern Africa in terms of bird abundance.
These areas are not only likely to have significant existence values, their tourism potential has yet to
be fully realised. For example, across the Orange River in South Africa, Alexcor have conducted
investigations into the potential of the area particularly for birdwatching-based tourism now that
diamond-mining operations are gradually being closed down as the resource is depleted.
Further breeding sites for migratory birds and seals are found on 15 nearshore islands63 currently
all unprotected.
3.
Most Namibian endemic plants, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds are
found in a zone running along, and to the west of, the Namib escarpment64, with the Succulent
Karoo biome representing an important region of endemism for succulent plants, reptiles and
invertebrates. Centers of endemism for plants and vertebrates fall mainly outside state protected
areas and the similarity of endemism patterns in different taxa65 is a strong argument for initiating
and supporting conservation efforts outside the current network of protected areas. Namibian
ecological diversity is not evenly represented in the protected areas network, yet the Namib Desert
biome makes up 69 percent of the network while the Karoo biome is badly represented relative to
the 10 percent target.66
58
EcoAfrica Environmental Consultants, 2004. The Greater !Gariep Proposed World Heritage Site: a Feasibility Study.
Draft for Review. Prepared for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEA&T) of South Africa.
October, 2004. pp 1-66.
59
Pallet, J., et al, 1995. The Sperrgebiet – Namibia’s Least Known Wilderness. DRFN and Namdeb, Windhoek.
60
Byers, 1997.
61
Maartens, 2004.
62
Ibid.
63
Ichaboe, Mercury, Long, Albatross, Sinclair’s, Possession, Hollams Bird, Neglectus, Staple Rock, Seal, Halifax,
Plum Pudding, Lady’s Rock, North Reef and Pomona Islands.
64
Simmons, R.E., Griffin, M., Griffin, R.E., Marais, E & Kolberg, H., 1998. Endemism in Namibia: Patterns, Processes
and Predictions. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: in press. In Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: a
country study. Windhoek: Namibian National Biodiversity Task Force, pp 1-332.
65
Ibid.
66
Barnard, P., Brown, C.J., Jarvis, A.M., Robertson, A. & van Rooyen, L., 1998. Extending the Namibian Protected
Area Network to Safeguard Hotspots of Endemism and Diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: in press. In
143
4.
The knowledge of the biogeography and ecology of Namibia remains, however, patchy and
the number of endemics in Namibia is certainly an underestimate, since many undescribed taxa,
especially invertebrates, are likely to occur in small, isolated, endemic populations. 67 The
Biodiversity Task Force of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism identified sites and species of
ecological, economic or archaeological importance that needs to be updated regularly. The coastal
zone, the Namib sand sea and adjacent gravel plains and the winter-rainfall desert zone are among
the six major categories of Namibian sites of special ecological importance, the others being caves
and sinkholes, inland wetlands (perennial and ephemeral), and mountains and inselbergs (see Table
1).
Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: a country study. Windhoek: Namibian National Biodiversity
Task Force, pp 1-332.
67
Ibid.
144
Table 1: Terrestrial and Freshwater Sites of Ecological Importance in the Coastal Areas of Namibia 68
Category
Perennial rivers
Site
Lower Kunene River
Lower Orange River
Ephemeral rivers
Coastal wetlands
Including the Ugab, Huab and
Hoanib Rivers that reach the coast
Kunene River Mouth
Orange River Mouth
Sandwich Harbour
Walvis Bay Lagoon
Coastline
Lüderitz Lagoon
Cape Cross
Entire coast
Offshore islands
All 18 islands
Namib gravel
plains
Winter rainfall
zone
Sand dunes
Coastal fog belt
Aus area; Sperrgebiet
Southern Namib dune “sea”
Known distinctive values
Endemic fish; edible oysters and shrimps; habitat threatened
by Epupa Dam
One fish endemic to lower river; two others endemic to the
river basin are threatened
Biotic richness; large desert-dwelling mammals, refuges in the
desert, high value for human subsistence and tourism
Transition zone; sea turtles; migrant shorebirds (proposed
Ramsar site)
Migrant shorebirds (Ramsar site)
Biotic richness; 36 fish species; migrant shorebirds (important
Ramsar site); red data birds
Biotic richness; migrant shorebirds (most important Ramsar
site)
Migrant shorebirds; seabird breeding site
Cape Fur Seal and seabird breeding site
Biotic richness (endemic arachnids, birds, lizards, lichens,
etc.)
Seabird breeding sites; rich marine fauna plus artificial guano
platforms
Biotic richness and endemism (lichens, arachnids, insects);
habitat threatened by off-road driving
Biotic richness and endemism (succulent plants, arachnids,
insects); scenic grandeur
High endemism (arachnids, insects, lizards)
5.
The coastal areas of Namibia include a series of protected and recreational areas, namely the
Skeleton Coast National Park, the National West Coast Recreation Area, the Namib-Naukluft
National Park and the recently proposed Sperrgebiet National Park, formerly a mining concession
completely off-limits to the public and accessible to only a few scientists. Areas that have no
protection status are the areas of Walvis Bay and Swakopmund municipalities in the Erongo
Region, between Mile 14 north of Swakopmund and the Kuiseb River south of Walvis Bay.
6.
The most significant gaps in habitat protection are Namibia’s two priority areas for
endemism: the northern Namib (Kaoko) escarpment and the Sperrgebiet winter rainfall region in the
Desert and Succulent Steppe vegetation type.69 In addition, most wetlands and all nearshore islands
are under-protected and in need of urgent action towards the protection of their biodiversity and the
ecological functions they perform. The Kaoko escarpment, including the Brandberg massif and
nearby inselbergs and granite domes, is the most important endemism hotspot for vertebrate taxa in
both Namibia and Angola. These habitats fall largely on private farmland, and deserve urgent action
in cooperation with landowners to ensure long-term protection. Optimal protection of the Kaoko
and Southern Namib centers of endemism requires transboundary conservation. The coastline of
68
Based on Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological diversity in Namibia: A Country Study. Windhoek: Namibian National
Biodiversity Task Force, pp 75-76.
69
Simmons, R.E., Griffin, M., Griffin, R.E., Marais, E & Kolberg, H., 1998. Endemism in Namibia: Patterns, Processes
and Predictions. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: in press. In Barnard, P. (ed). 1998. Biological Diversity in Namibia:
A Country study. Windhoek: Namibian National Biodiversity Task Force, pp 1-332.
145
Namibia is, in fact, part of an emerging Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA), a continuum of
conservation areas that stretches from Southern Angola into Namaqualand in South Africa. Yet
these TFCA areas are biodiversity conservation areas on paper with little effective management in
place. The process to proclaim the Sperrgebiet as a protected area and its integration in the
emerging TFCA is ongoing and its integration in a transfrontier mixed 70 World Heritage Site
(WHS) that covers the Sperrgebiet, the |Ai-|Ais / Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, the Richtersveld
Community Conservancy, and the //Gamaseb Conservancy has recently been proposed. The
northern TFCA has only seen the very first steps taken with the signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding between the Angolan and Namibian Governments for the creation of the
Iona/Skeleton Coast Transfrontier Park.
7.
In contrast to the coastal arid terrestrial environment, the Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem (BCLME) off the Namibian coast has one of the highest primary production rates in the
world and is one of the most important renewable natural resources of the country. Shared with
Angola and South Africa, the BCLME supports vast populations of commercially exploitable fish
species and the inshore marine environment provides migration and nursery habitats for numerous
marine organisms. Benguela upwellings – mostly off Cape Frio and Palgrave Point in the Skeleton
Coast Park, and the area between Conception Bay in the Namib Naukluft Park and Lüderitz – are of
great significance for marine biodiversity in Namibia. Under the influence of physical and
biological processes associated with upwelling71 marine habitats of variety and variability result in
Namibia.
8.
The littoral zone marks the boundary between land and sea, and extends from the splash
zone down to the low tide mark. The majority of Namibia’s littoral habitat consists of sandy shores
in the southern Namaqua or northern Namib zoogeographic provinces. In general, intertidal and
subtidal regions of Namibian sandy beaches support low species diversity, and moderate to high
biomass of organisms in comparison to other west coast sandy beaches. The intertidal rocky shores
of Namibia are among the least studied of the southern African region and existing studies regard
the diversity of rocky intertidal species as low, in keeping with other sites in the Benguela system.
The shelf zone comprises those areas overlying the submerged continental margins with benthic and
pelagic habitats, and beyond the continental shelf extends the abyssal zone or area of open sea.
Most habitats in the Namibian marine environment support no endemic species. In Namibia there is
a total of 46 threatened species – critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable categories only –
according to the IUCN Red List.72 These include 11 birds, 3 reptiles, 1 amphibian, 11 fishes, 1
mollusk and 5 plants.
1.2. Coastal Biodiversity from a Regional Perspective
9.
Although NACOMA takes a landscape approach and thus cutting across administrative
boundaries there is a need to operationalize biodiversity conservation and mainstreaming of
biodiversity into national, regional and local development planning, management and monitoring
(delivery mechanism). Tailor-made approaches for capacity- and institution-building of these main
stakeholders would be integrated in on-going decentralization efforts to deliver coastal biodiversity.
70
A mixed site is a World Heritage Site that has both cultural and natural qualities of outstanding value. Mixed sites
often emphasize the relationship between the people and the environment.
71
Upwelling is one of the few ways in which nutrients trapped in the deeper oceanic layers are brought to the surface
and can be taken up by phytoplankton and incorporated into organic compounds.
72
IUCN 2003. 2003 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. <www.redlist.org>. Downloaded on 30 October 2004.
146
10.
The coastal biodiversity hotspots per administrative region are:
i. In the Kunene Region the entire coastal area overlaps with the Skeleton Coast Park, under
administration of the MET. The conservancies to the east of the Park are also considered of high
importance in terms of biodiversity and their conservation would increase the protection of the
Mopane savannah vegetation that is currently very low. The Kunene River Mouth is considered a
biodiversity hotspot, and although the Namibian side is part of the Skeleton Coast Park it is,
nevertheless, unprotected in the absence of an adequate wetlands protection framework in Namibia,
and an unprotected side in Angola (the Iona Park is scarcely functional at the moment).
ii. The Erongo Region covers part of the National West Coast Recreation Area and the Namib
Naukluft Park, as well as the Cape Cross Seal Reserve, a large area under the administration of the
MET with the former having multiple uses and a number of threats to biodiversity that are hard to
manage. The area surrounding Walvis Bay and Swakopmund have no protection status, the Walvis
Bay Wetland, the most important Ramsar Site, falling in this area. Further south, the Sandwich
Harbour is another wetland of international importance that falls in the Namib Naukluft Park. The
DANCED-funded Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) Project in Erongo resulted in a
detailed list of biodiversity hotspots in the Erongo Region (see Table 2) and the priority for action
towards their protection should be determined during NACOMA implementation.
iii. The Hardap Region’s coastal areas are covered by the Namib Naukluft Park under
administration of the MET. Other sites of biodiversity importance are the Meob Conception Area, a
former diamond area for which a Land Use Plan has been prepared, and the Hollam’s Bird Island
off the coast.
iv. Finally, in the Karas Region there is the Sperrgebiet, also a former diamond area that MET
plans to proclaim a protected area and integrate in the TFCA. The Lüderitz Lagoon and the Orange
River Mouth are important wetlands, the latter being a Ramsar Site that has been added to the
Montreux Record on account of the threats it faces and the lack of management.
147
Table 2: Conservation and Tourism Value of Sites of Biodiversity Importance in the Erongo Region 73
Name
Lichen fields
Wlotzbasken Lichen Field
Lagunenberg
Dolerite Dykes
Coastal Hummock Dunes
Walvis Bay Wetland
Birdrock Platform
Damara Tern Breeding Sites
Patrysberg
Swakopmund Salt Works
Cape Cross Lagoon
Cape Cross Seal Colony
Walvis Bay/ Swakopmund
dunes
Messum Crater
Rivers
Bird Paradise
73
Biodiversity value
Endemic lichen species, fragile plants and soils
Largest single lichen field in the worlds with endemic
lichen species
Particularly diverse lichen field with endemic species
Restricted habitat with rare Lithops and other succulents
Stabilized beach sand with habitat for specific flora and fauna
Most important wetland bird habitat in Namib Coast and
a Ramsar site
Only breeding site for great white pelican in Namibia and
one of the most important breeding sites for cormorants
Hosts 90% of the world population of Damara Terns, a
specie that is endemic to Southern Africa
Breeding site for white-fronted plovers and Damara Terns,
hosting exceptionally large numbers of waders
Artificial habitat that supports up to 20,000 wetland birds
Supports up to 11,000 wetland birds and potential
Ramsar site
Largest land-based breeding colony in the world
Hosts specially adapted desert organisms, but not important
for conservation as large areas are conserved in the Namib
Naukluft Park
Hosts springbok and zebra, lichens and Welwitschia on outer
ring
Support desert and non-desert organisms
Artificial habitat that is source of fresh water for flamingos,
ducks and geese
Tourism value
Unusual landscape of stabilized dunes
Unusual landscape that attracts international tourists
Scenic feature in flat desert landscape
Scenic feature in flat desert landscape
Lend diversity to the landscape
A scenic alternative to the desert landscape, it hosts attractive
bird species and is close to tourism centers
Only platform in world built in open sea, accessible to
tourists to see and close to tourism centers
Attracts bird watchers
Popular place for fishing, bait & crayfish collecting, walking
and with potential to attract bird watchers
Popular with bird watchers and with potential for ecotourism
Private property not open for tourism but with potential for
ecotourism
Most accessible seal colony that attracts over 20,000 tourists
per year
Popular for off-road driving, sand skiing and walking on
dunes
Secluded and great experience visiting and camping in crater,
but high number of people will destroy attraction
Green areas in dry landscape providing visual diversity
Good bird watching site
Integrated Coastal Zone Management Project implemented in the Erongo Region with DANCED funding.
148
Threats to Coastal Biodiversity74
11.
Activities taking place along the coast that may impact on the coastal and marine
environment and, consequently, on the coastal population, include growing settlements, mining,
fish processing, salt refining and other industries, port authorities in Walvis Bay and Lüderitz, oil
exploration activities in offshore waters, fishing and aquaculture, tourism, and agriculture
activities upstream from important river mouths. Figure1 describes the impacts attributable to
human activities and links these impacts to environmental threats and their ultimate consequences.
It shows how human activities can lead to impacts that in turn impact on human activities in a
potentially destructive cycle.
Figure 1: Human Activities, Key Impacts and Potential Threats to Namibia’s Marine Environment (Source:
Tarr 2004)
74
During preparation, detailed studies have been undertaken to assess the status, threats and root causes of biodiversity
as well as economic values of coastal resources. Reports are available for consultation.
149
12.
In terms of scale, impacts and economic importance, diamond mining is the most
prominent industrial activity in Namibia.75 However it should be noted that the failure to develop
alternative livelihoods during the (past) mining era leads to poverty now that the industry is
downscaling, which in turn will lead to people leaning more strongly on natural resources but not
necessarily in sustainable ways. Mining has left major marks on the environment and continues to
threaten key biodiversity values in protected areas in the absence of adequate zoning and strict
regulations. While the form of diamond mining practiced in Namibia does not require the use of
toxic chemicals (which would otherwise accumulate in the tailings) vast amounts of sand are moved
in order to extract the diamonds. Because the mines are generally located in isolated areas, they
require substantial infrastructural development such as housing, recreational facilities, roads,
airfields, maintenance facilities, waste disposal, water and power supply and administrative
buildings. The largest operation is Mining Area No.1 north of Oranjemund where Namdeb have
mined a strip of coastline roughly 110 kilometres long. The former intertidal area, approximately
300 metres wide, together with all its biodiversity, has been removed and sterile bedrock is all that
remains.76 Some new mining activities have recently been allowed along the Skeleton Coast after
the original mines in the area closer about 10 years ago. Environmental enforcement has improved
since that time, however, and the diamond mining potential of the area is thought to be limited at
best. Environmental management is also hampered by gaps in what is known about diamond
mining impacts.77 The following issues that still need to be investigated and better understood have
been identified recently78:






Cumulative effects of increased sedimentation through seawall erosion and deep water
tailings disposal
Cumulative effects of habitat destruction by deepwater mining operations and mobile
fishing gear
The potential effects of kelp cutting on puerulus (colourless, planktonic, juvenile lobster)
settlement and rock-lobster recruitment
The extent of natural environmental effects on seasonal abundance and distribution of rocklobster and fish stocks, larval settlement, recruitment patterns, and migration habits
Quantification of fishing mortalities, and
The impacts of mining on supra-tidal habitats.
13.
Coastal tourism is a priority economic area for local, regional and national development.
While tourism activities can provide employment and an avenue for involving local communities in
the region’s economy through mainstream as well as Community Based Tourism (CBT), they are
also likely to cause migration and increased movement of people through the regions to levels that
can pose obstacles to effective management of natural and cultural resources. Mining areas that
have previously been closed to public, such as the Sperrgebiet, are now perceived as potential
tourism attractions that will be increasingly exploited under the new management plan. At the same
time, biodiversity hotspots such as the coastal wetlands and offshore islands that have currently no
conservation status may suffer from uncontrolled developments in the absence of adequate and
75
Tarr, 2004.
Ibid.
77
Under the on-going BCLME Programme, detailed studies on assessing impact of on-shore and off-shore mining are
carried out and results will be shared with NACOMA Project.
78
Pulfrich & Penny (1999) in Tarr, 2004.
76
150
enforced zoning and environmental restrictions. Because so much land has been closed to access,
development and settlement pressure is exceptionally concentrated in and around the coastal
townships. Rapid tourist, industrial and other expansion in the arid coastal environment have
cumulative implications for water supply, quality and waste disposal. The societal costs associated
with tourism occur mainly through environmental damages including habitat destruction, littering
and visual pollution (particularly due to vehicle tracks). Given that most tourism activities along the
coast take place on state or local authority land, it should be relatively easy to set and regulate limits
of acceptable change. However, this has not been done for any of the coastal areas and there are
signs that these limits are being reached from an ecological and social point of view. Further,
tourism is also responsible for increased coastal development, which can have negative
environmental consequences. Towns such as Swakopmund are expanding rapidly due to the
demand for residential houses. This expansion is primarily along the coastline and it has been
suggested that houses will have been built all along the coast between Swakopmund and Walvis
Bay by the end of this century. This poses potential conflicts with the environment, since this area
supports more resident and migrant birds than any other stretch of beach in the country including
the near-endemic Damara Tern. In order to promote sustainable tourism along the coast, the follow
ten priority areas for action have been identified:
1. Supporting integrated land-use planning and management
2. Involvement of communities
3. Promoting nature awareness and especially encouraging tourists to reduce their impacts on
the environment
4. Involving staff, customers, communities in environmental issues
5. Reducing impacts of logistical and leisure transport (i.e. off-road driving, low level flying,
water sport)
6. Support (and possibly lead) efforts to reduce crime
7. Efficient use of fresh water resources
8. Waste minimization, reuse and recycling
9. Improving energy efficiency, conservation and management
10. Re-invest a proportion of turnover in conservation projects
14.
The benefits of fishing and mariculture are fairly well spread from the local to the national
scale. At a local and regional level, the sector provides substantial employment as well as a share in
profits from quota allocations. Lastly, the industry provides substantial government revenue at a
national level and contributes to foreign exchange reserves. The costs associated with fishing and
mariculture occur mainly through environmental damages taking the form of stock depletion
through over-fishing of certain species, the disruption of natural processes (removal or disturbance
of marine habitat and associated biodiversity in mariculture), destruction of species included in bycatch, indiscriminate rubbish disposal and littering and pollution generated in processing.
15.
Table 3 on the next pages identifies some of the major threats that the broader sites of
biodiversity importance along the coast face. Possible approaches to address these threats are also
analyzed in the table and provide indications for potential interventions supported by NACOMA.
151
Table 3: Threats to Biodiversity along the Namib Coast, Approaches to Address these Threats and Potential Contribution of NACOMA
Kunene River Mouth
Skeleton Coast National Park
Biodiversity
importance
 Remarkably high richness of avian
species, including Damara Tern
 Uniquely adapted plants and animals and unique wilderness area
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
 Part of the future Iona/Skeleton
Coast Transfrontier Park,
 Under the administration of MET
on the Namibian side
 National Park under the administration of MET
 MoU signed with Government of Angola to create the Skeleton Coast/Iona Transfrontier Park.
 New management plan will be developed, including zoning and tourism and development plan
Threats
 Uncontrolled activities in the area,
such as mining, tourism and
fishing
 Developments upstream such as
the proposed Epupa Dam





Approaches
to address
threats
 The main root cause for the threats
to the Kunene River Mouth is
insufficient protection of this
important wetland that has in the
past been proposed for declaration
as Ramsar Site. NACOMA can
initiate and support the process to
ensure the effective management
and effective protection of this
important biodiversity hotspot.
 The Kunene River Mouth is not
only important for its ecological
functions but also key in the big
picture of tri-frontier conservation
that is unfolding. In collaboration
with the BCLME Programme and
the Governments of Angola and
Namibia, NACOMA can facilitate
the incorporation of this important
site in the Kunene Region RDP.
 The negative impacts in the Skeleton Coast Park appear to be based on unsuitable or uncontrolled land use
options and weak enforcement, which are based on an old and outdated plan for the park. The new
management plan that will be prepared will zone the area according to suitable land uses and will include a
tourism development plan. NACOMA will contribute to building an integrated coastal zone management
structure that links the different role players at the national and regional level, which can support a
participatory process to prepare this management plan in the frameworks of biodiversity conservation and
regional development.
 NACOMA can support the preparation of the new management plan by facilitating a participatory and
consultative process that provides input from the different stakeholders that can benefit from the wise use of
the area.
 With the lowest of the four coastal regions’ HDI and a decreasing population due to unemployment, tourism
in the Kunene Region can play a key role in creating jobs and promoting local economic development.
NACOMA can support CBNRM Projects (through targeted investments) that provide opportunities to local
population of the Kunene Region and not only to selected entities. In the national context of growing
tourism industry based on biodiversity values, it is equally important to ensure that the Tourism Policy
makes provisions for equitable benefit sharing and for the reconciliation between conservation and
development.
 Due to the Park’s importance in the emerging tri-frontier conservation area, NACOMA can support the
consolidation of the transfrontier park and the sharing of “lessons learned” with the Greater !Gariep TFCA
in southern coastal areas and the border with South Africa through, for example, exchange visits and sharing
of information on Distance Learning and Information Sharing Tool.
Uncontrolled fishing (recreational angling)
Mining, the most affected area being Toscanini
Off-road driving and other negative tourism impact
Alien species invasion
“Small size” and isolation from adjacent habitats
152
Kunene River Mouth
Skeleton Coast National Park
 MET’s NPA Project under preparation has selected the Skeleton Coast-Etosha corridor as a demonstration
site to be included during the first half of the project. This will complement and add value to NACOMA’s
efforts to foster integration into regional and local planning and management.
153
Biodiversity
importance
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
Conservancies adjacent to the Skeleton
Coast National Park
National West Coast Tourist Recreation Area
Cape Cross Seal Reserve
 Containing some important species,
desert populations of large game
 Cover Northern Namib, National
Namib and escarpment (Mopane
Savannah) vegetation types
 Considered by MET important in terms
of biodiversity conservation
 Communal conservancies under the
Nature Conservation Ordinance
Amendment Act (5 of 1996).
 Under administration of community
organizations, NGOs, CBOs and MET
 Considered a priority in terms of conservation by MET
 Largest land-based seal
breeding colony in the
world
 19% of annual pup
production of species
 Tourist Recreation Area with lower protection status than national park
 Under the administration of MET “West Coast Recreation Area
Ordinance 20 of 1973” and “Accommodation Establishment and Tourism
Ordinance”: No tariffs payable and no permit is required.
 Proclamation as protected area planned
 Management plan dating from 1986 will be replaced with management
plan for proclaimed park
 Expected growth in the fishing industries and aquaculture
 Offshore mining and oil drilling
 Uncontrolled growth of tourism
 Limited water supply
 Alien species invasion
 “Small size” and isolation from adjacent habitats
 Nature Reserve
 Access controlled by MET
but utilization of resources
controlled by MFMR
 Cape Cross Nature
Reserve Plan
Threats
 The Mopane Savannah vegetation is
under-protected in Namibia
Approaches
to address
threats
 The conservancies adjacent to the Park
are considered by MET as key for
biodiversity conservation. NACOMA
can assist linkages between the
conservancies, MET and the Kunene
Regional Council through the RDP
 This area has a lower protection status than a national park, which means
that control of economic activities is less strict and has resulted in
negative impacts. Due to its importance in terms of biodiversity
conservation, MET has initiated a process to develop a new management
plan and proclaim it a national park, which will result in a new zoning of
the area and stricter regulations for development and conservation.
 NACOMA can support the process of preparation of the new management
plan by facilitating a participatory and consultative process that provides
input from the different stakeholders that can benefit from the wise use of
the area. This geographic area is perceived by MET as a priority in terms
of conservation and should therefore be considered a priority for
NACOMA as well.
 It is equally important to ensure adequate tourism, aquaculture, fishing
and mining policies that help reconcile biodiversity conservation and
 Potential shipping
accidents and dumping of
oil
 Negative tourism impacts
 Limited water supply
 Uncontrolled prospecting
and mining
 Small size and isolation
from adjacent habitats
 NACOMA during the
policy making process can
highlight Cape Cross as a
site of special significance
along the Namibian coast.
154
Conservancies adjacent to the Skeleton
Coast National Park
National West Coast Tourist Recreation Area
Cape Cross Seal Reserve
development.
Biodiversity
importance
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
Threats
Approaches
to address
threats
Walvis Bay Wetland
Walvis Bay / Swakopmund dunes










 Host specially adapted desert organisms
 Not considered as priority habitat for
conservation under ICZM Erongo Region
Project – large areas conserved in Namib
Naukluft Park






Rich estuarine fauna
Supports about 129,000 birds
Hosts Palaearctic and intra-African migrant birds
Hosts six rare bird species
Most important wetland bird habitat on Namib Coast
One of ten most important wetlands in Africa
Considered a priority in terms of conservation by MET
No protection status yet Ramsar Site
Under jurisdiction of Walvis Bay Municipality, MLRR, NAMPORT
Re-declaration of the Walvis Bay Nature Reserve proposed. The Walvis Bay Nature Reserve
Draft Management Plan describes the management approach and goals, together with a
framework for decision-making and mechanisms for involving stakeholders as well as ensuring
socio-economic sustainability of the management measures.
Heavy human and industrial activity, with industries expanding
Extensive land reclamation for the salt works
Excessive water exploitation for consumption
Fish oil, fish processing wastes and ship-borne pollution from the harbor
Tourism activities such as off-road driving, motorized and non-motorized vessels, and flying
The main root cause for the threats to the Walvis Bay Wetland is the lack of legal protection and
effective zoning of this important Ramsar Site. NACOMA can support the process to ensure the
effective management and legal protection of this important biodiversity hotspot, by supporting
the revision and stakeholder consultation process for the draft management plan. The envisaged
policy process can use Walvis Bay Nature Reserve as a concrete case study.
 Responsibilities for coastal zone management should be clarified to ensure better coordination
both between the different local planners and between the regional and national levels.
NACOMA can play a supporting role through its institutional strengthening and capacity
building component by helping to clarify roles of the different parties currently in conflict, and
making sure “lessons learned” from the ICZM-Erongo Project are used.
 It is equally important to ensure adequate tourism, aquaculture, fishing and mining policies that
help reconcile biodiversity conservation and development. Furthermore, coastal planning should
be inclusive to ensure more opportunities are given to local communities such as the Topnaars.
 The Local Agenda 21 Project Steering Committee can play an important role in NACOMA, for
instance to provide guidance to targeted investments in the municipality. NACOMA can provide
 No protection status
 Under administration of municipalities
 Management and Monitoring Plan for the
Dune Belt between Swakopmund and Walvis
Bay, containing the output of consultations
and recommendations for management of the
area, in place
 Off-road driving
 Littering
 Impact from minerals mining
 Effective control is required of activities
taking place in this area, particularly
recreation activities. NACOMA can provide
support in the ongoing process of
development of a management plan for the
area
 NACOMA can support efforts towards the
zoning of the area, control of access to and use
of the area and the channeling of tourism fees
into better regulation and monitoring of the
area, as suggested in the plan
155
Walvis Bay Wetland
Walvis Bay / Swakopmund dunes
matching funding for community Projects supported by the LA21 fund that address biodiversity
conservation
Namib Naukluft National Park
Sandwich Harbour
Biodiversity
importance
 Suite of uniquely adapted organisms
 Low species density yet high endemism
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
 National Park
 Under the administration of MET
 The Management and Tourism Development Plan for the Namib Naukluft National Park, currently in draft
version for discussion, presents the values, policies and principles on which management decisions in the Park
should be made
 The Plan recognizes that the current Park boundaries are not the most efficient for conservation of the Namib
region’s biodiversity and thus calls for an improvement of the conservation status of the area, in particular the
formal protection of the coast and immediate marine environment
 The Meob Conception Area Land Use Plan was prepared to provide guidance for future land use development,
compatible with the overall goals of the Namib Naukluft Park
 Of-road driving and excessive pedestrian pressure can destroy lichens and other negative tourism impact
 Uncontrolled mining and prospecting
 Supports 8 Namibian Red
Data Book bird species
including the Damara Tern
 High densities of water birds
 Falls in National Park
 Ramsar Site
 Under administration of
MET, but powerless to
enforce protection of 1.6 km
extension into sea
Threats
Approaches
to address
threats
 Suitability of land use plan options and effective enforcement must be ensured for the Namib Naukluft Park
under the new management plan. MET envisions similar plans for all protected areas and therefore the Plan and
the process through which it was prepared provide important “lessons learned” that should be applied to the
other protected areas
 NACOMA can support further dissemination and discussion of the Plan with key stakeholders in the region to
make sure they share the same vision for the Park and can thus more effectively contribute to, and share the
benefits from it. The procurement process provided for in the Management Plan for much of the investment and
improved skills required from the private sector will constitute key opportunities for NACOMA support to
strengthening the link between protected areas, Regional Councils and rural communities. NACOMA can
support targeted investments proposed by communities or private sector/communities joint ventures. Adequate
mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that the local communities take part in this dialogue and also accrue
benefits
 Adequate protection of the coastal and marine biodiversity environments in the Park needs to be ensured and
requires enhanced collaboration between different jurisdictions (MET and MFMR) and adequate legal
protection. NACOMA support in this case will be in terms of strengthening the institutional and legal
framework for coastal zone management through a participatory policy development process
 Increasing impact from
tourism
 Commercial trawling
 More effective protection is
needed for this area,
especially at the level of
coordination between MET
and MFMR. NACOMA can
help strengthening the
structure for integrated
coastal zone management and
the links between MET and
MFMR
156
Namib Naukluft National Park
Sandwich Harbour
 It is also important to ensure that the under the forthcoming Tourism Policy equal opportunities are granted to
communities. NACOMA can fund targeted investments that support this principle
 The Meob Conception Area falls fully in national park on the west side of the Namib Naukluft National Park
and thus can potentially be supported by UNDP funding for Protected Areas
 MET’s NPA Project under preparation has selected the Namib-Naukluft National Park as a demonstration site
to be included during the first phase of the project. This will complement and add value to NACOMA’s efforts
to foster integration into regional and local planning and management
Biodiversity
importance
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
Threats
Approaches
to address
threats
Lüderitz Lagoon
Sperrgebiet
 Visited regularly by wetland birds
 Sites in the vicinity provide suitable
habitat for shorebirds
 No protection.
 Under the administration of the
Municipality of Lüderitz
 An epicenter of biodiversity in the Succulent Karoo biome
 Key for protection of the Succulent Karoo because it has enjoyed de facto selective protection
 Pollution from the harbor and
associated industrial development
around the town
 Disturbance by vehicles
 Land reclamation
 Potential introduction of invasive
alien invertebrates through
mariculture development
 The main root cause is the lack of
legal protection and adequate zoning
of the lagoon. NACOMA can initiate
and support the process to ensure its
effective management and legal
protection
 “Lessons learned” from the
NAMPORT EMS in Walvis Bay
should be applied in this area to
ensure best practice of industrial
activities presently affecting the
lagoon
 To be proclaimed National Park, including 3 nautical miles into the sea
 Under administration of MET
 The Sperrgebiet Land Use Plan is the first phase of the process towards the proclamation of the
Sperrgebiet as a protected area under the forthcoming Parks and Wildlife Act and its ultimate integration
in the TFCA.
 The Greater !Gariep Proposed World Heritage Site includes the Sperrgebiet, the |Ai-|Ais / Richtersveld
Transfrontier Park, the Richtersveld Community Conservancy, and the //Gamaseb Conservancy
 Impacts from prospecting and mining activities
 Increased movement and industrial and infrastructural developments in Lüderitz may impact on the
environmentally sensitive environment around
 Proposed mariculture developments may result in impacts if not properly planned and controlled
 Alien species invasion
 NACOMA can support a participatory process to ensure the integration of the Sperrgebiet Management
Plan with the regional development planning process. It will be extremely important to provide
opportunities for the people in the Karas Region to get access to their coast and participate in future uses
of the area
 The multiple uses proposed for the Sperrgebiet will open way for targeted investments that can be
supported by NACOMA. The Diamond Coast Recreational Area, which includes Lüderitz, provides
multiple opportunities for targeted investments, environmental education, etc. as this is where the coastal
population is concentrated. NACOMA support can aid the positioning of this area in the Sperrgebiet that
surrounds it
 It is equally important to ensure adequate tourism, aquaculture, fishing and mining policies that help
reconcile biodiversity conservation and development
157
Lüderitz Lagoon
Sperrgebiet
 Feasibility studies are required to
assess the potential impact of
mariculture activities on the lagoon,
as well as their potential benefits to
the local people
 It will furthermore be important to integrate coastal and marine biodiversity protection with
development and NACOMA can provide support through the strengthening of the integrated coastal
zone management structures involving the key line ministries and regional government
 Due to the Park’s importance in the emerging tri-frontier conservation area, NACOMA can support the
consolidation of the Greater !Gariep TFCA
 MET’s NPA Project under preparation has selected the Sperrgebiet as demonstration site to be included
during the first phase. This will complement and add value to NACOMA’s efforts to foster integration
into regional and local planning and management
Islands (north and south of Lüderitz)
Orange River Mouth
Biodiversity
importance
 Excellent breeding habitat for a large
number of seabirds
Protection
status, legal
bodies and
key plans
 No protection; lost marine reserves status
upon Namibia’s independence; access to the
islands still controlled. MFMR
 Baseline Study on the Establishment of
Marine Reserves in Namibia: lists a
proposed number of marine reserves






Threats
 Currently under no major threat but
uncontrolled promotion of tourism in
offshore islands may adversely impact their
rich biodiversity
 The islands are key to biodiversity
conservation but are currently not protected
under the law. NACOMA can support the
process of proclamation of the islands as
MPAs by strengthening the structure for
integrated coastal zone management and the
links between MET and MFMR.
Approaches
to address
threats
One of the top 6 most important wetlands in Southern Africa in terms of water bird usage
Breeding ground or migration stopover point
Supports 15 Red Data Book bird species
Flora demonstrates high rates of diversity and endemism
No protection status yet Ramsar site and added to the Montreux Record in 1995
The Orange River Mouth Development Plan focuses on land uses, rehabilitation, tourism, social
and development plans, infrastructure and general environmental issues
 Plans in progress to become a provincial park
 Under administration of MET and Department of Tourism, Environment and Conservation
(DTEC), the Orange River Mouth Interim Management Committee (ORMIMC) and a Technical
Committee on the South African side
 Diamond mining
 The main root cause for the threats to the Orange River Mouth is the lack of legal protection of
this important Ramsar Site and the lack of transfrontier management plan. NACOMA can
initiate and support the process to ensure the effective management and legal protection of
important biodiversity hotspots such as this wetland in the light of the forthcoming Wetlands
Policy and NBSAP’s Action Plan for Sustainable Wetland Management.
 NACOMA can encourage clarification of the institutional set-up and the drawing up of a
transfrontier management plan.
158
1.4. NACOMA’s Contribution to Address Threats & Root Causes of Biodiversity Loss
16.
While the coastal areas of Namibia are still relatively pristine, the downscaling of mining
and development of alternative livelihoods, rapid urbanization and industrial development may in
the future influence the environmental and socio-economic features of the coast. The pursuit of
unsuitable economic activities in coastal zone – either due to weak enforcement, inappropriate
planning and zoning or simply poor understanding of the value of the Namib Coast’s biodiversity –
may result in impacts on the biodiversity hotspots described above. At the same time, the
proclamation or upgrading of protected areas and the strengthening of the TFCAs can provide an
enabling framework to protect the natural and cultural resources of the coastal zone, provided
coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation are tied to local economic development.
The present threats (see Table 3) are rooted in an uncoordinated picture between biodiversity
conservation and national, regional and local development. Six specific root causes of biodiversity
loss have been identified (see below). It becomes evident that NACOMA’s goal to conserve
biodiversity conservation and to support mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity into development
planning and management is the linking glue between these identified root causes.
1. Poor awareness and lack of knowledge of coastal and marine values
The most pressing threat to biodiversity conservation is the lack of understanding of the values of
the coast and their potential for development. The people have been separated from their coast,
especially in the Kunene, Hardap and Karas Regions, but if they are given a chance to know their
coast, understand its biodiversity importance and benefit from its conservation and wise use, they
can become – together with the Regional Councils, local authorities and alongside MET and other
line ministries such as MME, MFMR, MAWRD and MLRR – key guardians of the Namib Coast.
2. Unclear and nationalized responsibilities
While the importance of the Namib Coast’s biodiversity is recognized in the string of protected
areas along the coast, the fact that a significant part of the coast has been designated for
conservation purposes (a mainly pre-independence legacy) has meant an unusually high level of
nationalized control and an unusually low level of regional and local authority involvement in
coastal land management. Roles and mandates at the national, regional and local levels in terms of
coastal zone management and biodiversity conservation are not clearly defined in the context of the
ongoing decentralization process.
3. Uncoordinated land use planning
Poor and uncoordinated planning between the different sectors and between the national, regional
and local levels make it impossible to reconcile biodiversity conservation and development, and
environment (and biodiversity) loses out first. There is a lack of vertical and horizontal integration
in Namibian sectoral and development planning. Clearly defined zones need to be established for
different economic development activities to ensure that current and future developments are in line
with the potential and sensitivity of each different area. The RDPs, land-use plans and conservation
site management plans are key instruments that can provide the framework for regional and local
planning and which all other land use and sectoral plans could refer to.
159
4. Absence of a modern and internally consistent legal framework
Existing conservation, dedicated coastal zone and sectoral policy and legislation are fragmented and
inconsistent and thus provide a poor framework for coastal biodiversity conservation and
development. In addition, sectoral policies should provide a framework in which sustainable
development is ensured but moreover reconciled with biodiversity conservation.
5. Insufficient natural resource management and protection of some key biodiversity hotspots
Inadequate legal protection of key biodiversity hotspots result in negative impacts encroaching with
development. Some key biodiversity hotspots are not protected in the law and their use is thus
unregulated in terms of access and activities, tools for their management not known or available.
This is the case of the coastal wetlands of Walvis Bay, Orange River Mouth, and Kunene River
Mouth, as well as offshore islands, undermining the protection of marine and coastal biodiversity.
Enforcement of regulations in protected areas needs to be strengthened and an assessment needs to
be conducted to evaluate the impact and rehabilitation needs from uncontrolled activities in
protected areas, such as mining in the Skeleton Coast and the Sperrgebiet.
6. Insufficient public input on how resources are used and inequitable benefit sharing
Poor level of public participation in biodiversity conservation and highly skewed patterns in terms
of the use of natural resources and benefits to people resulted in detachment of the people from
conservation objectives along the coast. There are few linkages between biodiversity conservation
and sustainable livelihood creation for historically disadvantaged groups in the coastal areas, so the
incentive to conserve is not strong. In fact, in certain quarters there is a perception that biodiversity
conservation and development is irreconcilable. Thus there is substantial scope to investigate and
strengthen mechanisms and incentives for natural resource use and conservation outside or
bordering protected areas.
17.
The current efforts towards coastal biodiversity conservation and management, including
other GEF-funded projects such as the NPA project and the ICEMA project, each address some of
the specific issues though in some degree of isolation. In the current context of decentralization,
these isolated efforts need to be “glued together” into a coherent interventions framework that will
create an enabling environment for effective and decentralized coastal zone management and
biodiversity conservation in Namibia. NACOMA was in fact conceived from the lack of an overall
coastal zone management framework in Namibia and the gaps that exist in biodiversity
conservation. Striving for effective and equitable protection and use of coastal resources, the
NACOMA Project can play a key role in addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss through its
four components79 as described in Table 4. The table lists the root causes identified and analyses
how NACOMA can address them by complementing the current framework for biodiversity
conservation and streamlining current or planned efforts. The contribution that each NACOMA
Project Component can make is highlighted in the table.
79
Fourth component is not listed in the table as it deals with Project Management and Performance Monitoring.
160
Table 4: Root Causes to Biodiversity Loss and Contribution of NACOMA Project (per Component)
s of biodiversity loss
COMPONENT 1
Policy, legal and institutional
framework for coastal zone
management
COMPONENT 2
Targeted capacity building for ICZM
and biodiversity conservation
COMPONENT 3
Targeted investments in cr
ecosystems for biodiversity
conservation, sustainable u
mainstreaming
ness and lack of knowledge of
marine values
pressing threat to biodiversity
n is the lack of understanding of
of the coast and their potential
ment.
 Involvement of key stakeholders and
the wider population in developing
coastal zone policy
 Regional Coastal Profiles developed
as well as an overarching one for all
the Namibian coastal areas and
popular versions for awareness
raising
 Training of LA, Regional Councils
and line ministries on biodiversity
conservation and natural resource
management
 Information on biodiv
explaining the value of w
coastal areas
 Economic assessment
resources and their p
economic generators,
provide a basis for s
targeted investments
 Further research in biodiv
where there are informatio
d nationalized responsibilities
mandates at the national,
d local levels in terms of coastal
nagement and biodiversity
n not clearly defined in the
the ongoing decentralization
 Identification of gaps in planning and
conservation legislation
 Involvement of key coastal players in
policy development process and in
clarification of responsibilities
 Institutional capacity building of
Regional Councils, LA and line
ministries, specifically in terms of
environmental
planning
and
management and building of
partnerships for these purposes
 Enhanced integration between the
different ministries and between
them and regional and local
government
 Bringing tiers of governm
as other partners togeth
information
sharin
implementation
of
investment Projects
ated land use planning
ncoordinated planning between
nt sectors and between the
nd regional levels make it
to reconcile conservation and
t, and environment loses out
s lack of vertical and horizontal
in Namibian sectoral and
t planning
 Revision of the role of Regional
Development Planners, the process
followed in producing them and their
level of statutory power
 Coordination
between
sectoral
policies with a view to reconcile
development and conservation
 A policy that adequately addresses
coastal issues and processes,
including the access to resources,
their use and conservation of
biodiversity
 Revision of RDP development
process to integrate key stakeholders
such as MET, MME, MFMR, MLRR
and LA
 Improved and skilled structure at the
national, regional and local level for
land use planning and biodiversity
conservation
 Guidelines on how natur
can be used in an envi
sound manner, how ben
shared and “lessons lea
pilot targeted investments
f a modern and internally
egal framework
onservation, dedicated coastal
ctoral policy and legislation are
and inconsistent and thus
poor framework for coastal
n and development
 Design, manage and implement a
comprehensive policy program for
Namibia
 Capacity building of Regional
Councils, LA and line ministries to
play a key role in terms of coastal
policy processes
 Enhanced biodiversity inf
support, as well as
stakeholders to particip
coastal policy program fo
natural
resource
nt and protection of some key
y hotspots
legal protection of key
hotspots result in negative
roaching with development.
 Support to proclamation of key
biodiversity
hotspots
currently
lacking legal protection
 Development of monitoring and
evaluation capacity in the Regional
Councils, LA and line ministries
 Capacity building and involvement in
selection and monitoring process of
targeted investments
 Support to targeted inv
critical ecosystems tha
biodiversity conservation
 Ensure
 Enhanced
 Targeted investments th
public
input
on
how
that
the
concession
integration
between
161
s of biodiversity loss
COMPONENT 1
Policy, legal and institutional
framework for coastal zone
management
COMPONENT 2
Targeted capacity building for ICZM
and biodiversity conservation
are used and inequitable
ring
of public participation in
conservation and highly
terns in terms of the use of
ources and benefits to people
detachment of the people from
n objectives along the coast
framework for protected areas and
sectoral policies promote equitable
opportunities to the wider population
 Investigate
and
strengthen
mechanisms and incentives for
natural resource use and conservation
outside or bordering protected areas
biodiversity conservation objectives
and regional development vision
 Promoting participation of Regional
Councils, LAs and line ministries
representatives and communities in
conservation
area
management
development process
 Increased support to CBNRM
activities in rural and communal
areas
COMPONENT 3
Targeted investments in cr
ecosystems for biodiversity
conservation, sustainable u
mainstreaming
natural resources-based d
open to the wider
including communities an
 Increased capacity of
Councils, LAs and line m
steer conservation-relate
outside, and beyond
duration
162
Annex 19: Decentralization in Namibia: Implications for Biodiversity Conservation and
Sustainable Use on the Coast
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
Background on Decentralization in Namibia
1.
Decentralization in Namibia aims to ensure economic, cultural and socio-economic
development, and provides people at the grassroots level with the opportunity to participate in
their own decision-making and extend democracy to them as a right based on national ideals
and values. The Decentralization Policy was first conceptualized and introduced in Namibia in
1989, under the South-West Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO) Political Manifesto on
Local Government and Housing. The concept was later embedded in the Namibian
Constitution, providing for the structures of Regional and Local Government. In 1992, subnational structures were created by enacting the Regional Councils Act and the Local
Authorities Act, which instituted the formal introduction and implementation of
decentralization in Namibia. The ministry responsible for Regional Councils and Local
Authorities is MRLGH, which is also responsible for coordinating the actual implementation
of decentralization.
2.
Regional Government: Namibia comprises thirteen Regional Councils (RCs)80, which
are further divided into a number of constituencies, each with an elected Councilor. RCs play
a planning role that is aimed at promoting development in their respective regions with a
broad mandate to ensure that governmental services are rendered in their respective regional
areas, either through line ministries or through parastatals that provide services such as water
and electricity. Therefore, RCs have a more direct linkage to national government than to
local government.
3.
Local Government: Namibia also has a separate form of local governance, namely Local
Authorities (LAs)81 that are governed by the Local Authorities Act of 1992. LAs are typically
centered around urban or semi-urban settlements and, thus, are limited in number and
geographical size. Environmental management functions, not specified in the Local
Authorities Act but mentioned in the Regional Council Act can be conferred upon to the LAs
through the interface provided by these two acts. There may be cases where coastal
management issues will be deemed appropriate to be managed at a local authority level.
4.
In the structure of regional and local authorities, it is the Regional Development
Coordinating Committee (RDCC) that coordinates the overall development in each region.
The RDCC is an advisory committee to the RC and it includes representatives of stakeholders
in the regions, including ministries, local and traditional authorities, NGOs and CBOs, chaired
by the regional officers. The representatives of the ministries, thus, also present the agendas of
their ministries, and give guidance to the RDCC on keeping within the national targets as set
out in the National Development Plan.
Decentralization Policy and Legislation
80
There are four Regional Councils located on the Namib coast, namely (from north to south): Kunene, Erongo,
Hardap and Karas (also see map in Annex 19).
81
There are four Local Authorities located on the Namib coast, namely (from north to south): Henties Bay,
Swakopmund, Walvis Bay and Lüderitz (also see map in Annex 19).
163
5.
Decentralization in Namibia is defined in the Decentralization Policy, which was
officially launched in 1997. The Policy entails the transfer of political, administrative,
legislative, financial and planning authority from national government to sub-national
governments. The Regional Councils Act and the Local Authorities Act, originally giving
exclusive responsibilities for the delivery of basic services to RCs and LAs respectively, were
amended in 2000 so as to allow for the involvement of the private sector in service delivery
and to increase the powers vested in the RCs and LAs. In 2000, two additional Acts were
promulgated: the Decentralization Enabling Act, which provides the legal framework for the
implementation and regulation of the decentralization of functions to both the RCs and LAs,
and the Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provisions Act, with the key
objectives of providing financial assistance to RCs and LAs.
6.
From a regional development perspective, the Government extended overall
development planning to the regional level during the second NDP period. The government
also introduced Vision 2030, which aims to guide these relatively short-term development
plans (starting with NDP2 up to NDP7) until 2030. The Regional Planning and Development
Policy, which was approved by Cabinet in 1997, seeks to establish a coherent regional
planning framework for the decentralization process to facilitate improved co-ordination
between regional development institutions and to avail the required resources for the
attainment of regional goals. Therefore, the policy provides the platform for the
decentralization transition process aimed at establishing enhanced planning, management and
operational capacities at regional and local authorities.
Leading Strategy and Milestones in the Decentralization Process
7.
The Decentralization Policy proposes that decentralization would go through two main
stages, starting with delegation of functions from line ministries to RCs or LAs and ending
with devolution, which provides RCs and LAs with full administrative decision-making,
budgeting and planning powers.
8.
The Directorate of Decentralization Coordination (DDC) under the MRLGH provides
overall direction and coordination of the decentralization process. It operates in accordance to
the Decentralization Implementation Plan (DIP), which provides guidance for all involved
stakeholders through the various phases of the implementation process. Under the DIP, line
ministries82 are tasked to submit line ministry action plans to the MRLGH, which define the
functions of the respective Ministry to be decentralized to RCs, timeframes, staffing
requirements, budgetary implications and the overall facilitation of practical issues relating to
decentralization.
9.
In 2004, the MRLGH instituted and approved the Regional Council management
structure Blueprint83, which is designed to expand the organization structure of RCs to
effectively accommodate the functions to be decentralized, and clarify the institutional
arrangements and new personnel structures needed (see Figure 1). To date, within the four
82
Eight line ministries are affected by the current phase of delegation: Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and
Culture; Ministry of Health and Social Services; Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development;
Ministry of Environment and Tourism; Ministry of Women Affairs and Child Welfare; Ministry of Lands,
Resettlement and Rehabilitation; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting; and Ministry of Works, Transport
and Communication.
83
The Regional Council structure is considered a blueprint, as it can be adapted for individual regions to suit the
region-specific needs and activities.
164
coastal regions, management positions which have been fully or partially filled are the Chief
Regional Officer, the Directorates for Education, General Services and Planning and
Development Services, as well as the Deputy Director for Finance and for HR. Positions
which to date have remained vacant within the four coastal regions are the Directorates for
Community Health and the Deputy Directors for Planning and Development Services,
Administration, Education and Community Health.
Funding Situation
10.
The Regional Councils Act designates RCs to spearhead socio-economic planning in
the regions. However, limited human, capital and financial resources available in the Councils
currently curtail this function. RCs have minimal income available to finance regional
development as they possess only two key revenue sources - MRLGH budget appropriations
and locally generated revenues (i.e., five percent taxes from municipalities) as well as
additional funding from donor-led initiatives, with very little possibilities for further
increasing their revenues. Local and regional ‘green taxes’, aiming at reducing the use of
natural resources and encouraging recycling of waste, are not available as an income resource
and would require amendment of legislation to become effective. The Trust Fund for Regional
Development and Equity Provision, defined in the Law on the Trust Fund of 2000, can play a
pivotal role in providing additional and supplementary finances to the central government
budget or to act as a lever to access other funding sources by either providing seed money or
technical assistance to the RCs. However, the Trust Fund has not yet been established
functionally and while its objectives are to support a more balanced regional development
scenario, most of the coastal RCs are unlikely to be the first to benefit from it.
11.
Large Local Authorities are principally self-funding whilst smaller authorities are
reliant on grant funding from MRLGH. This has an implication on the funding situation of
RCs, which is determined partially by delivery of local taxes.
Status of Decentralization Related to CZM
Key Line Ministries Involved in CZM
12.
The MET is still at an early stage of preparedness for the delegation process of its
functions, with elements of a draft action plan available only for CBNRM and communitybased forestry management. Among other functions, MET has yet to give a mandate to plan
for the delegation of conservation, including the management of national parks, although
stipulated in the decentralization policy a priority theme to be delegated to RCs and LAs in
the short term.84
Other line ministries affected, such as MWTC, MAWRD and MLRR are at various stages of
preparedness for decentralization. MWTC has identified functions to be decentralized and has
begun to prepare for the restructuring of its regional units to align with the RCs; however, the
Ministry’s detailed planning has been put on hold due to internal events85 and its action plan
needs to be further developed. Within MAWRD, the Directorate of Rural Water Supply has
prepared its action plan and is likely to start the gradual delegation of water supply to the RCs
from April 2005. In that regard, MAWRD can be seen as a best practice, from which lessons
learned could be applied to other ministries. MLRR has not yet prepared its action plan. MME,
84
Also indicated in UNDP-led National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) report findings, 2004.
Including the unexpected and indefinite absence of a focal person on decentralization and master minder of the
restructuring plan of the Directorate of Maintenance.
85
165
which is not among the ministries identified for delegation, presently remains silent with
regard to decentralization, while MFMR, also not identified, has indicated interest in
decentralizing aquafarming to RCs.
Regional Councils
13.
At the regional level, RCs - together with local and traditional authorities - are the
agencies primarily tasked with the planning, implementation and coordination of regional
development activities and processes in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. However,
within the current RCs structure no adequate attention is given to environmental planning,
which is a significance and relevant function in development planning. The proposed
Blueprint makes provision for the establishment of the Directorate of Planning and
Development (highlighted in Figure 1), under which Sub-Division Environmental Planning
should fall. However, the process is hindered by, inter alia, shortage of needed staff, skills or
funding for this function. As a result, RCs are currently incapable of ensuring environmental
protection within the framework of regional development. This impediment may explain the
recent upsurge in unsustainable economic activities within the ecological sensitive coastal
areas.
Local Government
14.
Although only few, Local Authorities within the Namib coast play a significant role in
environmental planning due to their area of jurisdiction, namely urban areas at the eastern side
of the coast, and their proximity to the coast. It is well known that the constructive
engagement of local communities as the primary custodians of their natural resources is
critical for conservation to be widely understood and practiced on ground level. Yet, while
partnerships between government, private sector and local communities have been constantly
advocated and encouraged, the reality is that limited benefit sharing has resulted thus far and
local communities have remained on the periphery of development.
Challenges and Synergies in the Decentralization Process Related to Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Use
15.
The decentralization initiative has great potential to further the aims and objectives of
the NACOMA project in that it will enhance the mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation
by enabling RCs and LAs to play a more proactive role in developing and implementing
biodiversity conservation and sustainable use-related activities in the coastal plans of their
respective areas, as well as address and incorporate biodiversity conservation issues and
related planning in their RDPs. The process, however, faces several challenges which the
Project will need to address as well as synergies which have the potential to positively affect
the integration of these complementary vehicles.
Figure 1: Organization Structure of Regional Councils (Management Cadre)
166
REGIONAL COUNCIL
Management Committee
Governor
Chief Regional Officer
Director
Planning, Development & Services
Director
General Services
Deputy Director
Planning, Development & Services
Deputy Director
Finance
Director
Education
Director
Community Health
Deputy Director
Education
Deputy Director
Community Health
Deputy Director
HR
Division
Planning
Deputy Director
Administration
Sub Division
Evironmental Resource Mgt.
16.
Below is a summary of identified challenges86 to decentralization of biodiversity
conservation-related tasks and NACOMA intervention:
Table 1: Identified Challenges to Decentralization of Biodiversity Conservation and NACOMA
Intervention
Identified Challenge
Lack of coherent coastal
legislation or national
coastal area policy
document resulting in
poor horizontal and
vertical coordination and
cooperation
Low capacity in line
ministries, RCs and LAs
for environmental
management and planning
and mainstreaming of BD
conservation and
sustainable use87,
resulting in difficulty to
make provision for
sustainable coastal
development
Stakeholder Group
Mainly Concerned
LM
RC
LA
X
X
X
X
X
NACOMA Intervention
Component
- Initiate and implement coastal
participatory WP development
process
- Review and clarify roles and
mandates of key institutions
- Organize practical workshops
and consultation frameworks
- Develop institutional
capacities
- Targeted assistance to MET
with its Action Plan
1
2
These challenges were mostly identified and confirmed at a number of stakeholders’ workshops during project
preparation.
87
See also the UNDP-led National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment (NCSA) findings, 2004.
86
167
Lack of overall awareness
to available natural
resources within the coast,
as well as fundamental
issues and practices based
on NRM and biodiversity
conservation, amongst
relevant line ministries,
RCs and LAs
Inadequate enabling
environment for
decentralization of BD
conservation tasks, i.e.
restricted transparency,
openness and willingness
to share authority and
resources by some line
ministries, and shortage of
coherent guidelines and a
national model available
for such a process
Financial dependency and
restrictions for ICZM
issues at regional/local
level
Various degrees of
decentralization progress
amongst relevant line
ministries
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
- Develop coastal profiles
- Facilitate relevant information
dissemination (communication
plan)
1
- Solicit support for BD and
CZM mainstreaming
- Provide clear transitional
guidelines for delegation of
biodiversity conservation
responsibilities from national to
regional level
- Develop pilot projects with
broad-based participation of
different stakeholders
1
- Review and adjust of
legislation to increase funding at
regional and local level
1
- Collaborate with and
complement donor programs
focused on the decentralization
process in the country
1+2
2
2
3
17.
In facilitating ICZM and biodiversity conservation decentralization, NACOMA
benefits from the momentum the decentralization process is gaining as a result of recent
donor-led programs focusing on complementary issues related to decentralization
enhancement, mainly the Finnish and the French support. The Government of Finland assists
MRLGH with tasks related to the planning, decision-making and implementation of the
powers and functions that are to be decentralized to regional and local levels with the DDC as
the main immediate beneficiary. The Government of France provides technical support to
RCs’ for regional planning, design and implementation of territorial projects, and support to
the implementation of an information and communication network between RCs, line
ministries and the DDC (see Annex 2).
18.
Whereas the Finnish and French support to the decentralization process is cross
cutting, NACOMA’s contribution will be sectoral, focusing on environmental management
and planning for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use on the coast. NACOMA will
work in close collaboration with these two programs, building up on each other’s success and
lessons learned, leading to limited risks and providing for synergies in the process.
168
Annex 20: Project Participation Plan
NAMIBIA: Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
This Annex outlines the goals, scope and methods for NACOMA project participation. The
detailed PPP will be included in the Project Implementation Manual and integrated in all
operational activities (including costing and monitoring).
What the PPP Aims to Achieve
1.
The objective is to engage individuals and communities, all levels of government and
other stakeholders in actively developing an integrated policy and targeted actions for the
conservation and sustainable and equitable development of Namibia’s coast. The shaping of a
common vision and improved cohesion between stakeholder groups will deliver long-term
benefits.
2.
The PPP will address social and institutional factors that currently limit opportunities
for many stakeholders to participate in decision-making or benefits related to coastal
resources.
3.
First, it aims to ‘reconnect’ inhabitants of all four coastal regions with their coast,
access to which is extremely restricted in most of the country. The PPP will build awareness
of the importance of maintaining coastal biodiversity and provide opportunities for
communities to express their needs and views on physical access and wider distribution of
benefits from sustainable economic activities. It will foster empowerment and greater
ownership by enabling the public to contribute to ICZM development and better understand
the management roles of regional councils and local authorities.
4.
Second, the PPP will facilitate communication and partnership between currently
fragmented sectoral and institutional stakeholders. It provides mechanisms to clarify
institutional roles and mandates during the complex process of decentralization and to
overcome specific blockages, thus helping to accelerate the transfer of relevant powers to the
regions. By building familiarity with highly participatory techniques, the PPP will have
replicable benefits for future development planning processes in coastal regions.
Stakeholder Identification: Who will be Targeted?
Overview
5.
The PPP will develop and enhance linkages within and between four main categories
of stakeholders (individuals, groups and institutions with an interest or stake in NACOMA
outcomes and those potentially affected by the project). The table gives an indicative list, to
be completed after profiles of target groups are refined.
Institutional and administrative stakeholders88
 National government (line ministries)
 Regional Councils (management units for ICZM implementation)
 Coastal Local Authorities
88
Many stakeholders in this category participated in project planning and design through the NACOMA Project
Preparation Workshop (Swakopmund, 11-13 August 2004).
169
Civil society
Communities (including coastal settlements that are not statutory Local Authorities) and
individuals likely to benefit and/or be affected by NACOMA (targeted by area/livelihood)
 Minority groups (see 2.2)
 Traditional authorities
 Other recognized community representations (including churches)
 Non-governmental and community-based organizations
 Academic, technical and research institutions, including local universities
Sectoral bodies (private sector, other trade/industry stakeholders)
 Stakeholder representative bodies and/or major operators in the fields of tourism, mining,
fisheries and aquaculture, other marine resource extraction, port management, water
management and energy.
 Parastatal bodies dealing with the above sectors
Representatives of major projects with linkages to NACOMA
The PPP will continue the existing close coordination between NACOMA and
complementary projects to promote cost-effective synergies and avoid duplication.
Involvement of indigenous people and/or other vulnerable groups
6.
Consistent with NACOMA’s participatory approach, indigenous peoples’ interests
were represented at the Project Preparation Workshop in 2004. The distribution and livelihood
profiles of minority groups in NACOMA’s intervention area are also outlined in background
documents.89
7.
The PPP supports targeted outreach where necessary to encourage participation of
indigenous peoples, isolated populations and potentially marginalized groups, including
women.
Scope
Which areas will be targeted?
8.
The PPP covers NACOMA’s project intervention area. It combines a focus on coastal
development hubs, where pressure on biodiversity is growing fastest, to more remote and
sparsely populated areas (e.g. in Kunene and Hardap Regions). Outreach beyond the eastern
boundary will be considered if necessary to engage communities located further inland e.g.
because of the way in which existing protected areas boundaries were drawn.
How the PPP will apply to each project component?
Component I (Policy, legal and institutional framework)
9.
The PPP will use a phased, iterative process, initially focused on the three tiers of
government and then broadening out to include a fuller range of stakeholders.
89
Rapid assessment of the development plans, biodiversity conservation projects and socio-economic situation of
the Namib coastal regions and Economic Analysis of Natural Resources in two of Namibia’s four coastal
regions: Karas and Erongo.
170
Sub-cpt
I.1
Institut.
Mandates
I.2
Legal
review
I.3
Targeted stakeholders
 Line ministries, RCs, LAs.
 Liaison with complementary projects
e.g. BCLME for marine issues;
Finland/France projects on support for
decentralization.
 Line ministries, RCs.
 Local planners and enforcement staff.
 Sectoral
stakeholders
(technical
aspects).
All four categories (phased).
ICZM
policy
framework
I.4
Coastal
profiles
 RCs lead role, also LAs.
 Supported from line ministries.
 High involvement civil society and
sectoral stakeholders.
 Targeted input as appropriate from
academic and research bodies.
Nature of participatory activities
 Inter-ministerial consultations to identify overlaps,
conflicts and grey areas regarding roles and mandates.
 Problem-solving workshops on specific issues (e.g.
MPA jurisdiction issues; scope of MET decentralization).
 Small expert working group (meets regularly).
 Focused consultation on local implementation/sectoral
questions that arise during review process.
 Involvement of Finance Ministry as appropriate.
Combination of:
 Institutional/technical process for policy scoping/vision
 Community and stakeholder meetings (analysis, testing
vision, feedback)
 Restricted membership drafting group, supported by
technical sub-committees as necessary
 Consultation and comment phase: high participation,
mechanisms adapted to different stakeholder groups
 Revision and finalization of draft policy
 Technical committee/task force for each Region.
 Sectoral stakeholder input through focused workshops
or broader meetings as appropriate.
 Public meetings for comment and feedback.
Component II (Training and capacity-building)
10.
This component has a more technical focus. It interfaces with the PPP in two respects:

Training activities should include, as necessary, training of civil society stakeholders (e.g.
NGOs) in facilitation and participatory techniques

The communication, media and environmental education plans to be developed under II.3
should be closely coordinated with the PPP
Component III (Targeted investments in critical ecosystems in biodiversity conservation,
sustainable resource use and mainstreaming)
11.
This Component aims to mainstream and strengthen biodiversity conservation at the
local site-specific level, consistent with expanded opportunities for sustainable economic
growth. It therefore has much more immediate implications for communities and other
stakeholders around biodiversity hotspots. The PPP will focus on information-sharing,
awareness-building and techniques to build trust and consensus between very different
interest groups.
Sub-cpt
III.1
Coastal
BD
mmt plans
Targeted stakeholders
All categories (geared to the
local or regional profile).
Sectoral stakeholders will vary
according to the area concerned.
Nature of participatory activities
 Local public meetings to explain issues and options
affecting the area/hotspot concerned.
 Facilitated consultations on particularly controversial issues
(consider collaborative interactive techniques e.g. charettes)
Information-gathering tools (e.g. surveys, questionnaires)
171
III.2
Implementation
of
Priority
Actions under
the
Management
Plans
As above.
Particular efforts to engage
communities and
minority/disadvantaged groups.
where needed to fill gaps, involve other groups.
 Direct approaches to community/private sector stakeholders
to engage them in socio-economic activities to benefit
communities as well as monitoring and surveillance (scope for
joint ventures, public-private partnerships, micro-enterprises).
 Adapted formats and community information points to
disseminate information on project opportunities.
 Facilitation/leadership capacity identified and developed in
universities, NGOs and/or CBOs.
Proposed Approaches to Maximize Public Participation
12.
The PPP provides for a structured communication process covering information
dissemination, consultation and active stakeholder participation.
Information dissemination
13.
The starting point is transparency in the preparation, conduct, reporting and evaluation
of NACOMA’s activities. A simple project summary will be prepared and widely
disseminated to all main target groups at the time of project launch and during
implementation. This complements formal documentation on project activities and progress.
14.
A mix of outreach techniques will promote informed participation of target groups in
all regions. A core set of materials will be produced in a format (including use of indigenous
languages) accessible to communities and made available for display via public information
points established in the main coastal towns and villages. This will complement conventional
approaches (published materials including the proposed bi-annual coastal newsletter, local
radio and other media coverage, press releases, website) under the Communication Plan.
15.
The Project Management Unit (PMU) will have lead responsibility for periodic
dissemination, supported by key regional players (e.g. RDCCs) and sectoral players (CZM
focal points).
Consultation
16.
The PPP will combine open broad-based meetings with more targeted and in-depth
approaches (issue-driven consultations, interactive workshops to generate concrete ideas, local
stakeholder forums) and other information gathering tools (interviews, surveys). For minority
groups, resource persons may be used as ‘advocates’ if necessary.
17.
Meetings will be announced in advance through local media, posters and/or other
appropriate means and held in convenient locations and at convenient times to maximize
attendance. Reasoned feedback will be given to explain which options have been retained and
why.
18.
If the Project will include activities that would necessitate a resettlement process
framework90 (OP 4.12), the PPP would cover additional elements of such a framework,
specific to the particular area in which access is to be restricted. These would consist of: (a)
the process whereby compensatory measures will be formulated and agreed on for persons
whose livelihoods are adversely affected, (b) grievance procedures, (c) legal/administrative
90
See Annex 10 for more details.
172
procedures, and (d) monitoring arrangements. Such a grievance or appeals process would be
managed by the PMU as entity overseeing PPP’s implementation. Thus, in case there is a
group of stakeholders that feels its interests are being curtailed by a restriction on access and
that the additional elements of a process framework should be formulated and agreed on and
have not been, appeals can be submitted to the PMU. If the complainant will not be satisfied,
he or she would then have recourse to a disinterested agency that has responsibility for
protecting the rights of citizens in the area.
Participation of stakeholder groups throughout the project cycle
19. Mechanisms to ensure participation/representation of key stakeholder groups include:

Steering Committee (executive body with four line ministry and four RC representatives:
gives RCs high profile role and can facilitate inter-regional coordination);

Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (advisory body comprised of
executive and political representatives from the four Regions; ICZM focal point from each
key line ministry; NGO, civil society and private sector representation; representatives of
complementary programmes e.g. sub-regional UNDP/BCLME programme, UNDP
Protected Areas project);

Establishment of sub-ICZMCs nested in RDCCs (pose mid-term). These will provide
locally based mechanisms adapted to each Region’s needs and characteristics and bring
together the different stakeholder groups on a regular basis;

Establishment of the CZ Scientific group. This will ensure the participation of different
scientific groups and stakeholders;

Use of existing structures at local level to increase Project’s effectiveness. The Project
will therefore make maximum use of the existing structures and mechanisms such as
VDCCs (Village Development Coordinating Committees) and any other structures in
place within RCs for grass root levels public participation.
Required Technical Assistance
20.



TA will be needed to support:
Training of facilitators
Preparation of materials
Organization and conduct of public forums
21.
Potential linkages will be explored with the Environment Management Plan, the
Communication Plan and the work of the two NACOMA-supported environmental planners.
A costed table will be included in the full PPP.
Timeframe
Cpt I.1-2
Cpt I.3
Cpt I.4
Immediate start, duration approx.30 months
Start Year 2, building on outcomes Cpts II.1-2 (2-3 years iterative)
Immediate start, ongoing
173
Cpt III.1
Cpt III.2
Immediate start, duration 2-3 years
Immediate start and then on going
Monitoring and Evaluation, including Indicators, Frequency of M&E, etc.
22.
The full PPP will set out indicators on dissemination, consultation and participation,
linked to the different components, timeline and responsibilities. These will be integrated into
the project arrangements for results monitoring.
23.
The PPP will be reviewed at mid-term (30 months) to determine its effectiveness and
identify scope for adjustment or improvement.
Responsibility for Oversight of PPP
24.
This will be the task of the PMU and assessed on a regular basis during the Bank’s
supervision missions.
174
Line Ministries
Ministry of
Environment and
Tourism (mainly
through Directorate of
Environmental Affairs)
Draft decentralization
action plans only for
CBNRM and forestry
management, not yet for
delegating conservation/
protected area
management to regions.
Existing objectives
Promote sustainable development,
biodiversity conservation
(forestry/parks/conservancies),
participatory environmental
planning and tourism.
Laws and policies
 Sea Shore Ordinance (No.37, 1958)
 Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 4 of 1975 and amendment)
 Forest Act (No.12 of 2001)
 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan 2001-10
 Policy for the Promotion of Community-based Tourism (1995)
 Policy for prospecting and mining in PAs and national
monuments (1999)
 EIA Policy
Draft legislation on Environmental Management and Assessment,
Parks and Wildlife Management, Integrated Waste Management.
Draft policies on Concessions concerning hunting, tourism and
other services in Proclaimed PAs and on Parks and Neighbors.
175
NACOMA role and issues
 Chair of SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Oversee CZ policy process
 Work closely with RCs to
decentralize environment
planning/management
 Work closely with PMU to
evaluate and implement
NACOMA activities and
targeted activities in
biodiversity hotspots.
 Legal framework for park
management and
biodiversity conservation
including requesting
availability and periodic
review of standardized
management plans for
each national park and
monitoring scheme
 Role of MET’s training
unit within Directorate of
Administrative Services
(DASS) in targeted
training plan under
component 2.
 Lead agency for
biodiversity monitoring
and research.
Ministry of Regional,
Local Government and
Housing (MRLGH)
Directorate of
Decentralization
Coordination (DDC)
coordinates
Decentralization
Implementation Plan
(DIP)
Promote development, coordinate
and implement phased
decentralization, promote
democracy and participative
planning. Oversees urban planning
and regional land use planning and
administration by RCs and LAs.
Generic decentralization training
program to be launched 2005.
 Regional Councils Act (No.22 of 1992)
 Local Authorities Act (No.23 of 1992)
 Town Planning Ordinance (Ordinance 18 of 1954)
 National Housing Development Act (Act 28 of 2000)
 Decentralization Enabling Act (Act 33 of 2000)
 Trust Fund for Regional Development and Equity Provision Act
2000 (to provide financial assistance to RCs and LAs)
 Community Courts Act (Act 10 of 2003)
 Decentralization Policy and Regional Planning and Development
Policy (1997)
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
Complementary crosscutting decentralization
projects launched in 2004:
 Government of Finland
(DDC main beneficiary:)
 Government of France
(technical support to RCs)
Urban and Regional Planning Bill (2002) would replace
NAMPAB with a new Urban and Regional Planning Board.
Ministry of Fisheries
and Marine Resources
(MFMR)
Not covered by DIP but
MFMR indicates interest
in decentralizing
aquaculture to RCs.
Ministry of Mines and
Energy (MME)
DIP does not provide for
MME decentralization
Ministry of
Agriculture, Water and
Rural Development
(MAWRD)
Plan to decentralize
water supply from April
2005. Regional
representation to be
established in Erongo.
Sustainable utilization of marine
resources; economic and social
development through fisheries;
sustainable optimal utilization of
fresh water fish resources. New
focus on aquaculture.
 Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone of Namibia Act
(No.3 of 1990)
 Marine Resources Act (No. 27 of 2000)
 Aquaculture Act (No.18 of 2002) and Strategic Plan (2004)
Draft Inland Fisheries legislation
Baseline Study on the Establishment of Marine Reserves in
Namibia (1998)
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
Increase mineral production and
energy supply, encourage national
benefits and employment creation,
create enabling environment that is
competitive and conducive to
promoting investment, reduce
environmental impacts of mining
and rehabilitate old mining areas.
Responsible for bulk water supply,
water distribution and regulation of
agricultural development. Dept. of
Water Affairs handles pollution
control for coastal waters and
control of effluent disposal by
land-based industries. Participates
in BCLME Programme and water
quality projects for Kunene and
Orange River estuaries.
 Minerals (Prospecting and Mining) Act (No.33 of 1992)
 Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act (No.3 of 1991)
 Diamond Act (No.13 of 1999)
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Mining legislation needs to
be reviewed and
recommended
improvements identified.
 Water Act, Act 54 of 1956
 Namibia Water Corporation Act, Act 12 of 1997
 Member SC (first half)
 Represented on ICZMC
Operational partnership with
MET needed on marine
jurisdictional issues and
MPAs.
Lessons learned from
MAWRD decentralization
process can be used to assist
MET and other ministries
with implementation of
decentralization plans
176
Ministry of Works,
Transport and
Communication
(MWTC)
Has identified functions
to be decentralized and is
restructuring its regional
units to align with the
RCs. Current delays due
to personnel constraints
Ministry of Lands,
Resettlement and
Rehabilitation (MLRR)
Provide, maintain and administer
government infrastructure
(accommodation, communication,
all forms of transport).
Currently conducting a feasibility study to erect a fishing harbour
at Mowe Bay within the Skeleton Coast Park area.
 TBC
Responsible for resettling
displaced and landless citizens,
land administration and the
management and monitoring of
resettlement schemes (powers to
grant Permissions to Occupy
outside PAs now transferred to the
new regional land boards.
 Communal Land Reform Act (No.5 of 2002)
 Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act (No.6 of 1995
 Traditional Authorities Act (No.25 of 2000)
Regional Councils
Kunene RC
Regional profile
Lowest per capita income as a
region, lowest HDI. Few formal
growth/development centers.
Erongo RC
Only region experiencing
economic growth: highest HDI.
63% population urbanized (wide
diversity living standards). Main
settlements (Walvis Bay, industrial
centre and national transport node;
tourism canters of Swakopmund
and Henties Bay).
Opportunities and constraints
Main sectors are agriculture and, to lesser extent, tourism and
manufacturing. Mining, particularly small-scale mining, of limited
potential for local economic development.
Ecotourism and CBNRM identified as growth sectors. Further
promotion of tourism depends on improved infrastructure,
information services, training and skills development.
Lead sectors are fishing (significant employment provider) and
expanding mariculture; mining (downscaling but still significant
foreign exchange earner); agriculture. Largest tourism base of the
coastal regions; benefits limited to small section of business
community). Growth areas include fishing industries, offshore
mining and oil drilling. RDP aims to diversify economy and
promote more equitable distribution of resources, facilities and
services throughout the region and among its inhabitants.
Has not yet prepared its
decentralization plan.
 Member SC (second half)
 Represented on ICZMC
To be determined
Policies:
 National Land Policy 1998
 Draft National Land Tenure Policy (Workshop held 2002)
177
NACOMA role and issues
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Sub-ICZMC (second half)
RC concerns that Skeleton
Coast Park forms barrier
between residents and coast.
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Sub-ICZMC (second half)
Has experience of ICZM
(DANCED project) and a
Coastal Profile: is extending
project results to other
regions. Hosts ICZMC.
Hardap RC
No coastal inhabitants
Major economic activity is agriculture (small-stock and
ostrich farming: further diversification planned). Freshwater
fishing only. Well-developed infrastructure base, but trade located
inland. Growing tourism (strategic location). Coastal areas
currently bring little or no income to region.
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Sub-ICZMC (second half)
Karas RC
Comparatively high HDI but
benefits (mining, agriculture) fairly
limited: poverty rampant in rural
and communal areas.
Diverse economy, primary-sector propelled. Coastal diamond
mining (downscaling on land, expanding offshore); fisheries
(fluctuating) and growing mariculture around Lüderitz; mix of
communal (48%) and commercial agriculture, largely Orange
River-based; some private farms run for tourism and/or trophy
hunting. Inward migration leading to rapid growth of informal
settlements. Tourism thriving (Fish River Canyon), good
infrastructure, earmarked for expansion.
 Member SC
 Represented on ICZMC
 Sub-ICZMC (second half)
Coastal local
authorities
Henties Bay
Swakopmund
Autonomous bodies, typically
centered around urban or semiurban settlements, limited in
number and size along the coast.
Tourism
Tourism (major).
Walvis Bay
Main coastal industrial/transport
hub, also important for fisheries
and tourism.
Lüderitz
Harbour town, major tourist centre,
fisheries and aquaculture.
Small mining town inside the
restricted Diamond Area, owned
by NAMDEB: scheduled to
Oranjemund
Sperrgebiet restricted area
has blocked public access to
the coast.
 Local Authorities Act 1992
 De facto responsibility for coastal decision-making alongside
MET and MFMR. Report to RCs and pay (5%) annual budget
LA has created Environmental Conservation Committee with
representatives from MFMR, MET and some local tour operators,
to discuss potential environmental impacts from projects and
advise the Management Committee. Management and Monitoring
Plan for the Dune Belt between Swakopmund and Walvis
Bay developed through consultative process.
WB Local Agenda 21 project implemented 2001-4: outputs
include an environmental strategy and action plan for the coastal
area, the establishment of a fund to support community projects,
and the implementation of a number of micro projects. Workshops
organised to inform municipalities in the other regions about the
project. The Project Steering Committee will remain after the end
of the project to manage the environmental strategy and action
plan. A Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Coastline and
the review of the Walvis Bay Structure Plan will commence early
2005.
MET has regional office
Jurisdictional issues for
NACOMA include mmt of
WB Lagoon (split between
LA, NAMPORT and
MLRR), possible creation of
WB Nature Reserve.
MET Regional Office (?)
Kudu Power Project (linked to offshore Kudu Gas field) involves
construction of power station near Oranjemund (proposed site is
within high security mining area, but outside the estuarine Ramsar
178
become a municipality in future.
site and the proposed Orange River Mouth Wetland Park: EIA
launched Nov 2004).
i.e. settlements that are not Local
Authorities
TBC
Minority/marginalized
groups
Topnaar Foundation Cooperative
Based in Namib-Naukluft Park. Traditional use of !Nara bush for
food and oil production for edible, cosmetic and medicinal
purposes. Currently few benefits for community members.
Traditional authorities
NGOs (TBC)
TBC
Namibia Nature Foundation
Civil society
Coastal communities
Namibia Development Trust
(limited to Southern Namibia? –
Karoo
Coastal Environmental Trust of
Namibia (CETN)
Promote sustainable development, conserve biodiversity and
natural ecosystems, promote the wise and ethical use of natural
resources for the benefit of all Namibians.
Facilitate the establishment and strengthening of CBOs and
conservancies, enable communities to derive economic benefits
from natural resource management by assisting them to identify
and develop CB tourism initiatives.
The Coastal Environmental Trust of Namibia (CETN) is a nongovernmental organisation, which aims to promote sustainable
development, to conserve the fragile coastal wetlands and desert
environment and to promote environmental education, awareness
and understanding. CETN was formed in November 1996.
The focal area of CETN is to conserve the coastal environment in
particular the Swakopmund /Walvis Bay area. A major
achievement has been the Walvis Bay Lagoon Integrated
Environmental Management Plan and the considerable efforts in
promoting and gathering the various interests into the plan
CBOs
Conservancies
Universities and
Research institutes
 University of Namibia (UNAM)
 Polytechnic
 Namibian Long-term Ecological Research (NaLTER)
 National Museum of Namibia (NMN)
 National Botanical Research Institute (NBRI)
 Desert Research Foundation in Namibia (DRFN)
 Gobabeb Training and Research Centre (GTRC)
 National Marine Research and Information Centre (NatMIRC)
Benguela Environment Fisheries
Training Interactions Programme
Promotes joint research between lead institutes in the three
BCLME countries.
179
Role of NACOMA
Information-sharing,
engagement in policy
process and targeted actions
Possible support for
formation of harvesting and
marketing cooperative
TBC
TBC
Information-sharing,
engagement in policy
process and targeted actions.
Information-sharing,
engagement in policy
process and targeted actions
Potential members of
Scientific Group nested
within BENEFIT/future
BCLME sub-commission.
Support coastal profiling,
development of knowledge
base, assessment of targeted
actions.
Directly relevant activities
e.g. harmonization of
policies, coastal sensitivity
mapping
Overview of key stakeholders/activity areas in main coastal sectors
Tourism
Parastatal is Namiba Tourism
Board established by statute
(2000). Promotes development of
tourism industry, including
conservation and development of
tourism-related natural resource
base, in and outside Namibia.
 Namibian Community Based Tourism Association
(NACOBTA): supports communities in developing tourism
enterprises, provide business advice, start up assistance, training
etc., assists local initiatives with marketing materials.
 Namibia Wildlife Resorts Limited (Government owned). Aims to
conduct resorts service in conformity with development
strategies, including training/research, development of
commercially viable enterprises and sustainable tourism.
Tourism operators (TBC)
Fisheries
Offshore fisheries:
Large and growing industry. Major
progress on redistribution of
fishing quotas but not yet
complete. Walvis Bay has more
than 100 fisheries companies.
Line fisheries: growing competition for declining resource (tradeoffs may be necessary between different user groups):
 Subsistence/artisanal fishing e.g. Hanganeni association
(Henties Bay, formed mid 1990s) has 40 members, 11 are
women). Not economically viable, options for expansion or
diversification need consideration.
 Recreational angling (concentrated National West Coast
Recreational Area). Licence system introduced 2001
 Commercial line fishing (e.g. 12 vessel fishery out of Wal.Bay)
Other
Mariculture
 Abalone (one farm Lüderitz)
Seaweed (TBC)
Uranium, zinc…TBC
 Oysters (Lüderitz, Walvis Bay
and Swakopmund). 6 companies.
 Seal harvesting (Central and
Southern Namibia). Three licence
holders (one Lüderitz, two Cape
Cross).
NAMDEB (joint venture of De
Beers and Namibian government)
is largest diamond producer.
 Guano (off-shore islands and guano platforms at Walvis Bay,
Lüderitz and Cape Cross)
 Salt production (Erongo Region - WB, Panther Beacon, Cape
Cross).
Other producers:
 Namco
 Afri-Can Marine Diamonds
 Diamond Fields International
 Some evaluation of deposits further north (e.g. by Trans Hex and
Australian Russian Mining) but majority view is that not viable
Transport
Parastatal is NAMPORT
 Shell harvesting (Erongo,
mainly between WB and
Swakopmund): limited,
subsistence only (crafts)
Benefits principally go to
companies and central
government. Local benefits
in form of employment,
training, infrastructure
(particularly Oranjemund).
SKEP project indicates few
links between industry and
civil society on biodiversityrelated aspects.
Management
Other marine resources
Mining (diamonds)
180
(Namibian Ports Authority), which
is developing Environmental
Management System.
Main projects with linkages to NACOMA
ICEMA (GEF funded
CBNRM issues and conservancies
through WB)
Strengthening the
PA development plans and
System of National
capacity building, to increase
Protected Areas Project
financial gains from the parks and
(GEF funded through
benefits to communities and
UNDP)
country as a whole.
BCLME programme
(GEF funded through
UNDP)
Improve joint management of the
Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem.
responsibilities for part of
Walvis Bay (within future
nature reserve area)
Steering committee represents national fisheries, environment and
energy sectors. May lead to creation of trilateral commission.
WB196314
C:\Documents and Settings\wb196314\Desktop\NACOMA Draft GEF Brief 14 GR.doc
January 14, 2005 5:22 PM
181
Activity Centre in
Swakopmund handles
fishery-related aspects.