Document of The World Bank
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Public Disclosure Authorized
Report No: 33214-GN
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
ON A
Public Disclosure Authorized PROPOSED GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY TRUST FUND
IN THE AMOUNT OF USD 5 MILLION
TO THE
REPUBLIC OF GUINEA
FOR A
Public Disclosure Authorized COASTAL, MARINE AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PROJECT
June 2,2006
Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (AFTS4) Country Department 10 Africa Region Public Disclosure Authorized This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS
(Exchange Rate Effective January 30,2006)
Currency Unit = Guinean Francs, GNF 4,293 GNF = US$1 US$1.45 = SDR 1
FISCAL YEAR January 1 - December 31
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ADC Communal Development Agent (Agent de Dbveloppement Communautaire) AFD Agence Franqaise de Dkveloppement AGR Income Generating Activities (Activitbs Gbne'ratrices de Revenus) AV Village Animator (Animateur villageois) BSAP Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan CBD Convention on Biological Diversity cc Community Council (Cunseil Communa~taire) CENAGAP National Center for the Management of Protected Areas (Centre ~ationalde Gestion des Aires Protbgbes) CFAA Country Financial Accountability Assessment CNC National Coordination Unit (Cellule at ion ale de Coordination) CND National Commission on Decentralization (Commission Nationale de la D&entralisation) CNDD National Commission for Sustainable Development (Commission n at ion ale pour le Dheloppement Durable) CNE National Environment Council (Conseil ~ationalde E 'Environnement) CNSH-B National Fisheries Research Institute (Centre National des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussora) CP Steering Committee (Comitb de Pilotage) CR Regional Coordinator (Coordinateur Rbgional) CRD Rural Development Commune (Communautb Rurale de Dhveloppement) CZM Coastal Zone Management DND National Decentralization Directorate (Direction ati ion ale de la Dbcentralisation) DNEF National Directorate for Forestry and Water (Direction Nationale des Eaux et Forzts) DNH National Directorate for Water Resource Management (Direction Nationale de l 'Hydraulique) DPC Participative Community-level Diagnostic (Diagnostique Participatf Communautaire) DPDRE! Prefectoral Directorate for Rural Development and the Environment (Direction Prbfectorale du Dbveloppement Rural et de I 'Environnement) ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GIS Geographic Information System GNF GuinCe Nouveau Franc HDI Human Development Index ICZ Integrated Conservation Zone IFR Interim Unaudited Financial Reports IRD Institute de Recherche pour le Dbveloppement LIF Local Investment Fund (FTL) LME Large Marine Ecosystems LPDA Agricultural Development Policy Letter (Lettre de Politiique de Dbveloppement Agricole) M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAE Ministry ofAgriculture and Livestock (Minist&-ede 1'Agriculture et de E 'Elevage) MATD Ministry ofInterior and Decentralization (MinistGre de 1'Administration du Territoire et de la Dbcentralisation) ME Ministry ofEnvironment (MinistGre de 1'Environnement) MEF Ministry ofEconomy and Finance (Minist~rede 1 'Economie et des Finances) MP Ministry ofPlanning (Ministkre du Plan) MPA Marine Protected Area NCSA National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management NEPAD New Partnership for Africa's Development NRM Natural Resources Management 0GI"ONRG Observatoire GuinCe MaritimelObservatoire National de la Rkpublique de GuinCe PACV Village Communities Support Program (Programme d 'Appui aux Communautbs Villageoises, PACY) PAI Annual Investment Plan (Plan Annual d 'Investissement) PDL Local Development Plan (Plan de Dbveloppement Local) PGCT Community-Based Land Management Project (Projet de Gestion Communautaire des Terres) PRCM Regional Program for the Conservation of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in West Afiica (Programme Rbgional de Conservation de la Zone Ciitigre et Marine de E'Afiique de I'Ouest) PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper RCU Regional Coordinating Unit (Unitb Rbgionale de Coordination, URC) RPF Resettlement Process Framework SFC Sub-regional Fishery Commission SLM Sustainable Land Management SPD Prefectoral Development Division (Service Prbfectoral de Dbveloppement) STAP Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel UNDP United Nations Development Program URC Regional Coordination Unit (Unitb Rbgionale de Coordination) VCSP Village Communities Support Program (Programme d 'Appui aux Communautbs Villageoises, PACY) Vice President: Gobind T. Nankani Country Director: Mats Karlsson Sector Manager: Mary A. Barton-Dock Task Team Leader: Dirk Nicolaas Prevoo GUINEA Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
CONTENTS
Page
A . STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE ...... 1 1. Country and sector issues...... 1 2. Rationale for Bank involvement ...... 2 3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes ...... 2 B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 4 1. Lending instrument ...... 4 2 . Project Intervention Zones ...... 5 3 . Description ofBaseline Project ...... 5 4 . GEF Project development objective and key indicators ...... 7 5 . Project components ...... 9 6 . Lessons learned and reflected in the project design ...... 12 7 . Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection ...... 13 C. IMPLEMENTATION ...... 14 1. Partnership arrangements (if applicable) ...... 14 2 . Institutional and implementation arrangements...... 14 3 . Linkages with other Projects ...... 15 4. Monitoring and evaluation ofoutcomeslresults ...... 15 5 . Sustainability and Replicability ...... 16 6. Critical risks and possible controversial aspects...... 18 7. Loadcredit conditions and covenants...... 21
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ...... 22 1. Economic and financial analyses ...... 22 2. Technical ...... 23 3 . Fiduciary ...... 23 4 . Social ...... 24 5 . Environment ...... 25 6 . Safeguard policies ...... 25
7 . Policy Exceptions and Readiness...... 26 Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background ...... 27 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank andlor other Agencies ...... 34 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ...... 37 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description...... 47 Annex 5: Project Costs ...... 59 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ...... 60 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements ...... 63 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...... 68 Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis ...... 72 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues...... 74 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision ...... 77 Annex 12: Documents in the Project File ...... 79 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits ...... 80 Annex 14: Country at a Glance ...... 81 Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis ...... 83 Annex 16: Roots-Threats-Analys is ...... 94 Annex 17: Project Intervention Area and Target Sites ...... 100 Annex 18: STAP Roster Review ...... 113 Annex 17: Map No. IBRD 34775 ...... 119
GUINEA
COASTAL MARINE AND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT
PROJECT APPRAISAL DOCUMENT
AFRICA
AFTS4
Date: June 1,2006 Team Leader: Dirk Nicolaas Prevoo Country Director: Mats Karlsson Sectors: General agriculture, fishing and Sector Manager: Mary A. Barton-Dock forestry sector (65%); Sub-national Project ID: PO70878 government administration (20%); Other social Focal Area: Biodiversity services (10%); Central government Lending Instrument: Specific Investment Loan administration (5%) Themes: Environmental policies and institutions (P); Biodiversity (P); Participation and civic engagement (P); Decentralization (P); Rural non-farm income generation (P) Environmental screening category: Partial Assessment
[ ] Loan [ ] Credit [XI Grant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other:
For LoanslCreditslOthers: Total Bank financing (US$m.): 0.00 Proposed terms:
Borrower: Ministry ofFinance Conakry Guinea Responsible Agency: PACV-CNC Conakry Guinea Tel: (224) 46 40 23 Fax: (224) 46 40 31 Email: [email protected]
‘FY 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 Annual 0.20 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.30 Cumulative 0.20 0.70 2.20 3.70 5.00 Project implementation period: Start October 2,2006 End: June 30,201 1 Expected effectiveness date: October 2,2006 Expected closing date: December 3 1, 201 1 A. STRATEGIC CONTEXT AND RATIONALE 1. Country and sector issues
Guinea has a rich endowment of natural resources (renewable and non-renewable) and its economy is almost entirely dependent on these. The rural poor are particularly dependent on renewable natural resources and therefore the sustainable management of those resources. Mineral mining and agriculture represent the most important economic activities, providing employment to about 80 percent of total population. Agriculture is the dominant activity of the rural population (65 percent of employment), while 30 percent of the rural population is practicing livestock holding. The importance of fishing (5 percent of rural employment) is reflected in its contribution to the national diet (40 percent of animal proteins are provided by fish consumption). Household energy depends for 99 percent on wood fuels, and the healthcare system depends for 80 percent on traditional medicine practices, which rely on the availability of flora and fauna species.
Guinea has four main agro-ecological zones - Coastal, Moyenne GuinCe, Haute Guinke and GuinCe Forestikre. The Coastal zone, which comprises 15 percent of the country’s territory, is home to about 40 percent of Guinea’s population. Studies of coastal population trends over time indicate a spectacular increase of292 percent between 1963 and 1996. This population explosion is due to the fact that the coast is traditionally a resource-rich area (agro-pastoralism, minerals, fish) and that this is where most ofthe cities are located, including the capital, Conakry.
One-quarter of West Afkica’s mangrove wetland ecosystem, which stretches from Senegal to northern Angola, lies along Guinea’s coast. The irregularity of Guinea’s mangrove dominated shoreline provides a multitude of ecological niches. These habitats, particularly the marine and estuarine waters, are known to be among the richest on the West African coast in terms of diversity, productivity and food potential. They are essential for the survival of several species of migrating birds that are globally endangered or threatened, and for species that are economically important (fish and game).
The ecology of this wetland system is closely entwined with that of the ‘upstream’ coastal plateau and the ‘down stream’ continental sea shelf. This coastal ecology is coming under tremendous pressure fiom increased demand for land for food production, transhumance, fuel wood, etc. These pressures have been exacerbated by the persistence of poverty and lack of alternative sources ofincome or access to adapted technologies among the rural population.
Unless current ways of managing these natural resources change, an irreversible degradation of the ecosystems is inevitable. This would have direct economic and environmental consequences for the population at the local level, as well as impact medium and long-term national development strategies. It would also jeopardize sub-regional and international efforts to protect and maintain significant coastal ecosystem in particular related to Guinea’s important mangrove stands.
A concerted effort at national and local level is necessary. However, as in many other countries in the sub-region, the institutional framework, and the capacity to implement laws and policies, is insufficient to cope with the complexity and dynamics of integrated coastal zone management.
1 A large number of institutions, linked to various sectors, are engaged in a variety of economic activities that directly or indirectly affect coastal wetland and marine ecosystems. These institutions have different mandates, with potentially competing policies and objectives. Potential links and synergies between biodiversity conservation and sectoral goals have not been established. The need to ensure collaboration among these institutions in order to develop an integrated and sustainable approach to coastal zone management faces challenges, such as (i)low technical, human and financial capacity of many of these institutions in coastal resource management; and (ii)lack of effective mechanism to coordinate activities and establish consultation among various institutions and donor-fimded activities whose activities have direct impacts on coastal ecosystems.
The Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project (Project) is designed to address these issues in collaboration with ongoing regional initiatives. It is a five year project focused on developing the local and national institutional capacity necessary to halt and where possible reverse the consequences ofunsustainable resource use and to conserve key biodiversity in target sites. It will develop instruments and test approaches for sustainable natural resource use and conservation. The Project will complement a highly successful community-driven development program - the Village Communities Support Project (PACV).
2. Rationale for Bank involvement
The Bank has considerable experience to offer in institution and capacity building, be it for coastal management or environmental and social protection mechanisms, and its environmental safeguards are recognized as setting international standards. In addition, the Bank has recognized participatory community-based approaches as key to the successful implementation of rural development activities.
The Bank adds value through providing technical assistance for designing and implementing coastal and biodiversity projects that draw on worldwide experience gained through management of its important GEF portfolio. The Bank, as a GEF implementing agency, can therefore bring incremental grant resources and partnerships with other stakeholders to assist Guinea in tackling coastal and marine biodiversity issues of global environmental concern. In the particular case of the GEF Project, the link with the PACV is very important given the project’s proven track record in its participatory approaches with local populations. Lastly, a key synergy is expected fkom collaboration with the BanklGEF supported coastal project in neighboring Guinea-Bissau to form a larger transboundary conservation area.
3. Higher level objectives to which the project contributes
This Project supports the objectives of the Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) and the Bank’s Country Assistance Strategy (CAS) by improving the productivity and sustainable use of the natural resource base in Guinea’s coastal zone. The last CAS (Report No, 25925 GUI, 2003) identifies this project as a means to improve the management of Guinea’s environmental resources.
2 The Project is consistent with the CAS and PRSP objectives of supporting opportunities for employment and income-generating activities for the poor. In particular, it will contribute to an increase in the productivity of rural assets (labor and land) through the conservation, regeneration, and sustainable use of natural resources, and thus indirectly to increased rural revenues and increased food security. In addition, it will strengthen the institutional capacity of local governments and producer organizations to identify, design and implement such activities.
The Project also supports the Millenium Development Goals ofreduced poverty and hunger (#1) and environmental sustainability (#7). Furthermore, the Project supports several of the New Partnership for Apica 's Development (NEPAD) objectives. NEPAD explicitly calls for greater attention by multilateral development institutions to rural development. It specifically targets the issue ofnatural resource degradation.
The Project is in conformity with the Afiica Action Plan, in particular Pillars I and 111. Concerning Pillar I,it supports the integration of database systems into national structure. All impact studies will be done through a public institute attached to the Ministry of Planning and built-up with support of the French Government and the French GEF. All data collected through this Project will likewise be stored in an internet accessible portal to ensure sustainability of information. Concerning Pillar 111, it supports the drivers of growth by increasing agricultural productivity through the introduction of sustainable land management practices and builds the capacity of women and the poor though its socially inclusive capacity building activities and support to income generation through matching grants and demonstration activities.
Guinea ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity on May 7, 1993.' The proposed program fits well with the GEF Biodiversity Operational Strategy and supports the objectives set out in the Operational Program on Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (OP 2). It is in line with guidance from the first, second and third Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which stresses in situ conservation of coastal and marine ecosystems. It specifically responds to the Jakarta Mandate by supporting conservation and sustainable use of vulnerable marine habitats and species.
The Project responds to OP 2 guidance in various ways including:
0 taking an ecosystem approach to conservation; 0 involving local communities and resource users, including building on local knowledge; 0 strengthening community management for sustainable use and promoting economic incentives such as alternative livelihood opportunities; 0 strengthening local and national institutional capacity to address environmental issues, especially through developing a sustainable institutional and legal framework for promoting biodiversity conservation and management, and favoring participatory models that devolve biodiversity decision-making and. management to stakeholders at the local level;
Guinea ratified further the World Heritage Convention in 1979, the Washington Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) on 20 December 1981; the RAMSAR Convention in 1993, the Convention to Combat Desertification in January 1997; and the Framework Convention on Climate Change on September 7,2000.
3 e linkages with other countries in the sub-region will be actively pursued, especially with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (supported by the Regional Program for the Conservation of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in West Africa (Programme Rbgionale de Conservution de la Zone C6tiBre et Marine de l 'Afrique de l 'Ouest; PRCM); and e strengthening inter-institutional, and multiple stakeholder forums such as the national- level Biodiversity Committee, Discussion and Implementation fora in pilot areas, and fisheries committees so as to promote the integration of biodiversity into fisheries policies and decisions
The proposed Project seeks to design and test approaches that integrate biodiversity conservation and sustainable use concerns with poverty alleviation and socio-economic development. If successful, the models developed and piloted would be replicated elsewhere along the coastal region.
Furthermore, the Project is consistent with the strategic priorities for biodiversity and capacity building under GEF-3. In particular, this Project fits well under SP Iand I1 of the biodiversity focal area. The Project will support Guinea with the creation of its first coastal conservation area which would incorporate two RAMSAR-designated wetlands of high global and national biodiversity value (Tristao and Alcatraz) and which would eventually become part of a wider network of coastal and marine protected areas in the country and sub-region. In particular, the Project will seek early coordination with institutions (supported by a World Bank/GEF funded project) involved in similar efforts in Guinea-Bissau to create a larger transboundary protected area (TristaolAlcatraz - Cacina Protected Area). The result will be a substantial increase in Western Africa ofcoastal and marine areas under improved management for conservation and an increase of productive landscapes that support globally significant habitats and ecosystems around these protected areas. Targeted capacity building for piloting integrated coastal zone management in priority sites, including creation and management schemes and environmental groundwork with local change agents and communities, is at the center ofthe Project's approach. In addition, the Project will mainstream environmentally sustainable coastal land use planning at all levels (communities, and local and national government).
Finally, the GEF Project responds to the following two biodiversity conservation targets adopted for Oceans, Coasts and Islands at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg 2002: (i)develop and facilitate the use ofdiverse approaches and tools, and (ii)the establishment of protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 20 12. The proposed Project thus reflects national, sub-regional and international priorities for coastal and marine management as well as for biodiversity conservation.
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Lending instrumeut
GEF full-sized project (US$S,O million) to be implemented over five years.
4 2. Project Intervention Zones
The GEF Project will intervene in up to 17 CRDs in the coastal zone (see map in Annex 17). Special emphasis will be placed on CRDs around selected RAMSAR sites and shared watersheds. In addition, geographic contiguity of watershed coverage will be sought with the planned Community-Based Land Management Project (PGCT). As part of project preparation three priority RAMSAR sites were identified, Islands of Tristao, Alcatraz Island, and Rio Pongo. A root causes and threats analysis is presented in Annex 18. Identification was done in collaboration with the Regional Program for the Conservation of Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in West Afkica (Programme Rkgional de Conservation de Ea Zone C6tidre et Marine de E 'Afiique de I 'Quest, PRCM), which includes a wide representation ofinternational NGOs.
3. Description of Baseline Project
The Project will be associated with the first and second phase of the PACV and implemented from 2006-201 1. Start-up ofthe GEF Project will coincide with the last year ofthe ongoing first phase of the PACV, while full implementation (four years) would coincide with the second phase (2007-201 1). Selection of initial intervention areas has kept into account existing coastal zone coverage ofthe PACV. The GEF Project is intended to be a catalyst for sustainable natural resource use. Its results will be fully integrated and scaled up along the entire coastal zone, as part ofthe third phase of the PACV (201 1-2014).
This Project has been requested by the Government of Guinea to address the key issues described above for the coastal zone. The proposed GEF Project would complement the PACV in the areas where the GEF Project would be carried out. The aim would be to achieve a synergistic effect between sustainable resource use supported by the Project with the provision of basic infrastructure services and targeted capacity building through the PACV. The synergistic effect is demonstrated as follows: PACV support to develop and implement local development plans of coastal CRDs are targeted more towards social infi-astructure investments at community level while GEF funds would be more focused on incremental technical assistance to move towards an integrated planning approach, capacity building, monitoring and strategy work, and piloting of new technological approaches (for instance for improved energy efficiency in fuel wood use, and soil and forest management). In this sense, the GEF Project together with national and international partners would act as a catalyst to modify existing behavior and attitudes towards sustainable coastal zone natural resources use in local development plans and activities. The incremental cost financed by GEF is thus extremely important for the process ofdeveloping priority actions for the conservation and recovery in and around Integrated Conservation Zones (ICZ).
The PACV is presently co-financed by IDA, IFAD2,the African Development Fund (ADF), the Agence Franqaise de DCveloppement (AFD) and the Government of Guinea. This program seeks to reduce rural poverty through capacity-building at the level ofthe CRD.
IFAD co-financing has been fully utilized and a new loan is under preparation to support the second phase of the PACV.
5 The PACV has three phases and was to be implemented over a period of 12 years, in three phases of four years each. The first phase became effective in 1999 and is expected to close on June 30, 2007. The closing date for the first phase was extended twice because of implementation start-up delays and postponement of the local elections, which were a trigger for second phase financing. An additional financing grant was approved by the Board on January 24, 2006, to enable the PACV to complete first phase objectives and extend its geographic coverage from 100 to 146 CRDs. The second phase, which is currently under preparation, is expected to be launched in mid-2007. All 303 CRDs are to be included in the PACV by the end ofits second phase.
The first phase ofthe PACV has three specific objectives: (i)establish an effective and efficient mechanism for transferring public funds to local communities for the financing of prioritized rural community infrastructure; (ii)improve the regulatory, institutional, and fiscal environment and develop local capacity for decentralized rural development; and (iii)rehabilitate and promote regular maintenance ofinfrastructure and rural roads.
The PACV has tremendously improved the access of communities to basic social services, including health, education, and potable water, with the construction of 263 elementary schools, 155 health centers and dispensaries, and 167 water holes. In addition, the PACV has supported the establishment of 46 communal forests. The rehabilitation of rural roads and construction of 35 bridges has positively impacted access to markets and thereby provided a production incentive for local economies. Progress towards the PACV's overall program objective of strengthening local governance and promoting the rural population's social and economic empowerment is satisfactory. The first phase of the PACV has had a strong impact on local governance, with local communities feeling increasingly empowered to hold officials accountable for the efficient implementation of development activities. Local tax collection has also increased dramatically in response to the need to raise contributions for local development activities funded by external financiers and the close involvement of beneficiaries in the decision-making process. The PACV experienced initial start-up delays because the participatory approach to local development was a new concept for the country at the time, where most development efforts were top-down, and little experience with such approaches existed. There were also delays because the PACV required not only an in-kind contribution (15 percent), but also a cash contribution (5 percent) from communities before matching grants for micro-projects can be provided. This relatively high contribution for social infrastructure required that more time was needed to ensure that the process was fully participatory, lest communities would withdraw their support. The decrease in tax evasion in CRDs where the Project is active is testimony that it has broad community support.
One unplanned - and positive - impact of the PACV is that it has become an efficient implementation vehicle for other development projects, including HNlAIDS community mitigation activities, and health and education projects. The PACV has shown that communities can implement investment activities at the local level more efficiently than public services. The Guinea Education for All Project recently agreed to carry out construction of over 100 elementary schools through the PACV to resolve implementation issues. In addition, all development projects operating in rural Guinea have agreed to use the local development
6 planning process pioneered by the PACV as the sole vehicle for implementing local development activities.
The PACV presently includes three components: (i)a local investment fund to finance village infrastructure; (ii)support for local development; and (iii)program management, monitoring and evaluation.
Local Investment Fund &IF) is the mechanism for transferring funds to local communities to finance priority community infrastructure micro-projects. The LF comprises two funding windows: a Village Investment Fund (Fonds d ‘Investissement Villageois, FIV) and an Innovation Fund (Fonds dyppui rE l’Innovation, FAI). The FNwill help finance a predetermined menu of basic social infrastructure, such as education, health, drinking water and sanitation facilities, and village access roads. Total first phase funding for these activities is estimated at US$lS.O million.
Support for Local Development component supports the rationalization and operationalization of the regulatory and institutional environment for local development. The component includes support to five sets of activities: (i)streamlining the legal and regulatory framework for decentralization; (ii)effective fiscal and financial decentralization; (iii)CRDs’ capacity to develop and manage local development programs (Plan de Dbveloppernent Local, PDL); (iv) strengthen the capacity of the Ministry of the Interior and Decentralization (~inist~rede 1 administration du Territoire et de la Dbcentralisation, MATD) agencies and services, which are responsible for decentralization; and (v) sensitizing and training elected local officials and CRD administrative and technical staff in the areas of local development government, planning and financial management. Total first phase funding for these activities is about US$11.0 million.
Program Management, Monitoring and Evaluation component covers: (i) project coordination, oversight, and fmancial management, which includes establishing and operating the National and Regional Coordinating Units, and (ii)establishing and operating the overall monitoring and evaluation system. Total first phase funding for these activities component is estimated at US$6.7 million.
The second phase of the PACV will build on the strengths of the first phase and will add a pilot land security component as well as expand the basket of eligible activities to include support for socio-economic micro-proj ects. In addition, the second phase seeks to attain national coverage. At the present time, the Bank and IFAD are likely to provide about US$35-40 million for the second phase. Discussions with Government and other donors are ongoing.
4. GEF Project development objective and key indicators
The GEF Project’s overall development objective is to promote rational management ofGuinea’s coastal biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends in selected priority areas, with a particular emphasis on assisting communities in and around these priority areas to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoods options.
7 The GEF Project’s gZobaZ envi~on~entaZobjective is to promote the conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea’s coastal zone in selected priority areas encompassing coastal WSARsites. The GEF Project will work with local, national, regional and international partners to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biological resources in Guinea’s coastal zone.
The GEF Project’s development and global environmental objectives should be viewed within the context of a longer term and sub-regional effort spearheaded by the PRCM that: (a) supports the development of a network of participatorily-managed coastal protected areas of high global importance in line with Government’s biodiversity protection strategy and international commitments; and (b) identifies, tests, and implements with communities selected strategic activities that would strengthen sustainable use ofthe natural resources in the coastal zone.
The performance and impact of the Project will be assessed through the following outcome indicators (see also Annex 3) and are in line with GEF indicators defined for its Biodiversity
Strategic Priorities 1 and 2: I
The progress towards achieving GEF Project outcomes will be assessed through the following key performance indicators (see also Annex 3):
Effective participation of communities living around the protected area in its management, through the establishment of a stakeholder management committee, by the end of Project period. Assessment of this effectiveness will be done through the WWFlWorld Bank. Alliance site level management effectiveness tracking tool. Stabilization of natural resource base in areas under cultivation in Project watershed target sites by end ofProject (about 10,000 ha) as measured through technical audits; 0 Positive trend for key species and water quality indicators (baseline to end of Project) based on the indicators detailed in the Project Impact Evaluation Manual and for which a baseline will be determined within six months ofProject start-up; and 0 Ministry ofEnvironment is capable ofassessing the impact ofproposed and on-going development activities in the coastal zone and proposing mitigation measures, through satisfactorily conducted environmental impact assessments as confirmed through the technical audits.
The term integrated conservation zone (ICZ) is used in this document, except for where it concerns already established Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in other countries. The GEF Project’s first intervention site has been identified by the Government as its first potential MPA under its agreement with PRCM. There is, however, no legal framework defined for MPAs in Guinea. Moreover, at the international level, there are many different types of MPA, varying considerably in their purpose or objective; size and level of protection; and name and the legislation under which they are established. Finally, the term MPA implies a strong focus on marine resources, which does not correspond to the character of the other identified WSAR sites (e.g., Rio Pongo).
8 5. Project components
The Project has five closely inter-linked components. Three of these will provide incremental support to the PACV. Two components do not have an equivalent in the PACV and go beyond the objectives of the PACV. In support of its Global Environmental Objective, the GEF Project seeks to address identified threats in and around the targeted sites in collaboration with other partners and ongoing initiatives (Ministry ofPlanning, Ministry of Fisheries through the National Fisheries Research Center (Centre National des Sciences ~alieutiques- Boussoura; CNSH-B), Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, and PRCM. Below follows a summary ofthe five components, details are provided in Annex 4.
Component 1: Protection and Conservation of Coastal RAMSAR Sites
This is the first ofthe two additional components, which do not have an equivalent in PACV. It will have three sub-components:
1.1 Establishment of Integrated Conservation Zone. This sub-component aims to establish at least one integrated coastal conservation zone and develop management plans through participatory mechanisms. Two intervention areas, incorporating wetlands recognized under the RAMSAR Convention, will be included (i)Iles Tristao and Ile Alcatraz (two separate sites under the RAMSAR Convention) and (ii)Rio Pongo.
1.2. Conservation Zone Management. This sub-component aims to support the implementation of the management plans. It will also provide the CRDs, local communities and local developmentkhange agents with the core technical tools and financial support for the establishment and management of the coastal conservation zone around TristaolAlcatraz, including restoration. The scope of this sub-component will depend mostly on the management scheme adopted and activities will be site specific.
1.3. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation. This sub-component aims to build impact monitoring and evaluation capacity for the two identified sites, During GEF Project preparation, innovative socio-economic and ecological indicators have been developed, tested and validated by communities in proximity to the target sites. These impact indicators have been reviewed in detail and are fully integrated into the Project's impact monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. In addition, site management effectiveness will be measured annually through the adapted WWF-World Bank tracking tool for protected areas.
The lead agency for implementing this component will be the CNSH-B for the Tristao/Alcatraz Islands site and DNEF for the Rio Pongo site. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation will be sub- contracted to the National Observatory of Guinea (Obsewatoire de la Giinke Maritime - Obsewatoire National de la Rkpublique de Guinke, OGWONRG'). Targeted support will be provided under this component (establishment of on-site base, operating costs, minimal equipment and transportation).
To become a public institution (Ministry of Planning) with autonomous character and extended geographic across 4 themes: Biodiversity, rural systems, innovation (socio-economic), and poverty.
9 Component 2: Enabling environment for Integrated Coastal Zone Management
This is the second additional component, which does not have an equivalent in PACV. It will have 2 sub-components:
2.1. Institutional strengthening. Under this sub-component, four sets of activities would be supported:
(i)a study to identify options for financial sustainability ofthe establishment and management of coastal conservation zones. The study will be based on the management arrangements most likely to be used for the different RAMSAR sites and results would be available by mid-term review. The study would include a public expenditure review of Ministry of Environment (ME) and other line ministries involved in coastal conservation, investigate local level partnerships with financial and development agents for continued implementation ofproductive activities that combine conservation with socio-economic use of the ecosystem, and review the viability ofthe Environmental Fund (Fonds de Sauvegarde de I'Environne~ent,FSE), which was created by Government but never operationalized.
(ii)targeted capacity building of the Ministry of Environment's Office for the Coordination of Strategies and Planning (Bureau de Coordination des Stratbgies, de la Plan~cationet de la Prospective, BCSPP) in the area of environmental impact assessment that would enable this structure to evaluate the impact of proposed upstream mining and large infrastructure activities and be a partner in the development ofeventual mitigation activities.
(iii)review of the adequacy of the legal framework related to ICZ management on the basis of existing recommendations.
(iv) basic training and participation in workshops to deepen national understanding of different management approaches to integrated coastal zone management. Targeted beneficiaries would be from the various ministries including deconcentrated staff involved in the GEF Project.
ME, through CENAGAP and BCSPP, will be the lead agency for implementing this sub- component. Targeted support will be provided (training, consulting services, minimal equipment and operating costs),
2.2. Coastal Zone Knowledge and Communication. This sub-component is concerned with the existing knowledge, communication and coordination gaps at international, national, and local levels identified in the GEF Project's communications strategy. It has two sets ofactivities:
(i)establishment of an institutionalized integrated coastal zone coordination and exchange mechanism under Ministry of Planning. This mechanism would enhance flow information and experiences, and strengthen coordination efforts between concerned stakeholders at national and international levels.
10 (ii)support to the existing Info center of the OGWONRG to facilitate and enhance access to coastal and marine related information. The GEF Project would support the creation and maintenance of an internet-based portal.
The lead agency for implementing this sub-component will be MP. Targeted support will be provided (consulting services, study tours, minimal equipment, and operating costs).
Component 3: Local Investment Fund.
Additional resources will be provided as matching grants to communities for activities that have an incremental impact on biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use, thereby contributing to local and global benefits. These activities are presently not eligible under the PACV. Only those activities will be funded that are identified in the Local Development Plans (see Component 4). Procedures will be transparent so that for communities there is only one LIF (details defined in LIF manual), with different funding windows. Eligibility criteria for activities have been defined and project preparation funds have been used to test the interest, participation and technical and financial feasibility of eligible micro-projects in the CRD Kanfarandk around the Tristao islands.
This component will be managed by the Regional Coordination Unit (UnitC Rkgionale de Coordination, URC) of the PACV in Bok& This URC was planned to be created under the second phase ofthe PACV. The GEF Project will finance its first year of operation.
Component 4: Support for Local Capacity Building,
The Local Development Plan (Plan de Dkveloppernent Local, PDL) is the agreed basis for all development activities at the CRD level and is a key element of Government's decentralization policy. The PDL is developed using participatory processes tested by the PACV. Current PDLs focus primarily on community-based infrastructures as this was the limitation of the PACV LIF. The GEF Project will provide additional funding to assist populations of targeted CRDs adapt existing PDLs using a more holistic development approach emphasizing sustainable use and conservation activities. The specificities of micro and sub-watersheds inside the CRD would serve as geographic basis for the planning process. The PDL for Kanfarandk was successfully adapted as part ofGEF Project preparation.
This component will be managed by the National Directorate for Decentralization (Direction ati ion ale de la Dkcentralisation, DND) of MATD. The GEF Project will provide incremental support (consulting services, training and study tours, minimal equipment, and operating costs),
Component 5: Program Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
The objective of this component is to ensure cost-effective, efficient and streamlined implementation of the four other components. The GEF Project would provide limited incremental funding to the operational structures ofPACV and take advantage of cost-efficiency gains through base project services.
11 6. Lessons learned and reflected in the project design
Lessons have been taken from Guinea and a number of other projects, financed by the Bank and other institutions, which have shared the goal of integrated coastal zone management and the establishment ofprotected areas and effective, sustainable management systems.
{i) Weak institutional and local capacity and lack ofparticipation. Institutional capacity on the national and local levels has been weak, mainly due to the paucity of human and financial resources. As a result, proposed measures and regulations remain inoperative in the field. At the same time, the process of decentralization has remained weak in terms of its approach to Guinea’s environmental issues. There has in the past been very little public participation in the identification, formulation, and implementation of particularly environmental projects. This may partially explain the mixed results obtained so far in this area. .. {ii) Need to consider environmental concerns in coastal zone interventions and constraints. Over the past fifty years, public investment in the coastal region has been concentrated essentially on the problem of self-sufficiency in rice production. The preferred approach has been to stabilize and intensify production by developing hydro-agricultural infrastructure on vast expanses of coastal wetland. The agro-economic and ecological results of these interventions remain mixed, even to this day, and have contributed to the disappearance ofmangrove forests.
(iii) The lack ofa holistic approach to development. There has been a lack of data and information to provide a basis for decision making and planning processes at all levels4. In addition, the coastal zone (including slopes, mangroves and the ocean) has been the site of numerous sectoral development projects dealing essentially with economic issues affecting the population (agriculture, livestock, fisheries, harbor development and industry). Few interventions have dealt directly with cross-cutting environmental issues or with the conservation and sustainable use of the area’s biodiversity, with the following limited (in terms of scope and funding) exceptions:
0 mangrove project in the Bay of Sangarbah; 0 coastal studies project; 0 project concerning the RAMSAR Convention on the protection ofbird species; 0 sea turtle protection project; and 0 AGlR
The following general lessons from past experiences in the country and from other biodiversity projects within the World Bank have been incorporated in the project design:
0 There is a need to take into account all interrelated ecosystems @e., the coastal plan, the maritime wetlands, and the continental shelf) and to model the impact of planned interventions on the whole system. 0 There is a need to accept beneficiaries in all their complexity @e., their multifarious
For example, many projects generated sectoral assessment reports, manuals and progress reports but there are not systematically collected, shared and used. Supported by French finding, the Atlas of Maritime Guinea provides a wealth ofinformation but is not sufficiently disseminated and known.
12 activities, and individual and collective strategies) and in terms of their political, social and economic reality (which constitutes the dynamic and external aspect of Maritime Guinea’s evolution). 0 Beneficiaries must be involved and given the necessary information on which to base their considerations as it is only them who have a vital interest in conservation, either because their livelihoods depend directly on biological resources or because their quality of life depends significantly on use and existence values ofbiodiversity. They need to be helped in this task, from the design stage up to the phase of simulating post-project management. The problems of land tenure and possible land re-apportionment need to be dealt with. 0 It is important to take the time to help beneficiaries and to train them, over the course of several cropping seasons, in the use of the proposed new techniques. They should also receive feedback on the results of any sociological, technical and economic monitoring that has taken place. 0 Methods ofmass communication must be developed so that the project’s contacts are not limited to a few individuals who may not be representative of the population. Increased participation by interested stakeholders and, in particular, local communities, NGOs, and the private sector must be ensured. There should be an independent scientific structure capable of measuring trends and dynamics at the regional level and over an indeterminate period oftime. Past experience should be exploited and its results disseminated. 0 Establishing financial mechanisms that fully cover operational costs on a sustainable and long-term basis. 0 Decentralizing responsibilities from the federal to state and municipal environmental agencies.
Thus, the Project includes the following elements: 0 Start with demonstration activities around Tristao (pilot site, site visits, exchanges, media packages, etc.) and outreachkonsciousness-raising efforts (e.g., meetings, debates, etc.) under component 1, 2 and component 4 before expanding coverage to include the remaining 17 CRDs in the coastal zone. 0 Train beneficiaries and involve them in design and implementation, with close monitoring under component 1,3 and 4. 0 Strengthen the legislative and institutional framework under component 2. 0 Strengthen (existing) institutional entity(s) for surveillance and coordination of coastal zone development under component 1 and 2 (DNEF, CNSH-B, Ministry of Environment). 0 Set-up mechanisms to monitor adherence to commitments under component 1 and 2.
7. Alternatives considered and reasons for rejection
There were two main alternatives considered:
(a) A free-standing GEF project aimed at the creation of Guinea’s first protected area around the islands ofTristao and Alcatraz. This alternative was rejected. In the absence of a link with a broader based local development operation, limited incremental resources would not allow for an
13 adequate scaling up of change-inducing capacity-building and investment support along the coastal zone. Project activities could therefore not be mainstreamed into the local development planning process in the coastal zone areas, and would thus not be able to achieve sustainable impact.
(b) A GEF project which is fully blended into the existing PACV project design. This option was rejected because the scope of the GEF supported project and its global environmental objectives would have placed too many divergent responsibilities on the PACV, which far surpass its mandate. It would thus lead to unrealistic demands on the PACV and would jeopardize its primary mission. In addition, the project requires a broader ownership.
The partially blended option that was chosen builds upon the strengths of the different agencies involved and addresses weaknesses by incorporating numerous, competent partnerslstakeholders to work with CNSH-B, DNEF, Ministry of Environment and Ministry of Planning. By maximizing stakeholder participation in project management, ownership will be expanded and increase the probability that its goals will be achieved within the proposed time frame. The design retained has the best potential for mainstreaming sustainable natural resource use in local development.
C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnership arrangements (if applicable)
The Project has been designed by Government to be fully in line with sub-regional efforts as promoted by the PRCM. In this regard, the Steering Cobittee in support ofthe process of the creation of an Integrated Coastal Conservation Zone covering part of the Tristao and Alcatraz Islands, and supported by the PRCM, will provide technical support to the SC ofthe PACV. The four established PRCM technical working groups (institutional, legal, etc.) will be used and financially supported by the GEF Project as relevant.
2. Institutional and implementation arrangements
Overall management and coordination of the GEF Project will be ensured by the Project Coordination Unit (Cellule Nationale de Coordination, CNC) under the Ministry of Planning. The PACV CNC, which has shown its strength during the implementation of the first phase of the PACV, will be appropriately strengthened by the GEF Project with the addition of (i)an accountant, (ii)a procurement assistant, (iii)a geographer specialized in GIs systems to strengthen the M&E unit, (iv) a focal point to assist the National Coordinator; and (v) a focal point at the URC in Bok6 to support implementation on the ground and assist the local team based on the Tristao Islands with the process of creating an ICZ. Such a decentralized technical support will also be in line with supervision mission recommendations, which point to the need for closer supervision and strengthened local support. Some of the additional staff (i.e. accountant, procurement assistant, and geographer) will be financed by the PGCT as they will share responsibilities under both projects and shared funding would pose administrative difficulties.
14 Implementation arrangements for the first two components will be reviewed at mid-term on the basis of experience gained and the recommendations of a recently launched GEFlUNDP supported capacity assessment ofthe Ministry ofEnvironment (NCS A). Each responsible agency will designate a focal point that would liaise with the CNC. The remaining three components will be completely integrated into the PACV and implemented through its existing mechanisms.
Project implementation will be on the basis of detailed work programs. For each component a detailed work program has been prepared for the first 18 months ofimplementation. Preparation of subsequent annual work programs, budgets and procurement plans will follow the same calendar as for the PACV, to ensure appropriate integration. Review and approval of the work program will be the responsibility ofPACV's Steering Committee (SC), which meets twice each year5. At the first meeting, the results of the previous year's work program and the proposed work program and budget for the following year are discussed, while the second meeting is used to review progress towards attaining work program objectives.
Implementation progress of work programs will be reviewed bi-monthly by the Technical Implementation Committee (Comitb technique d'exkccution, CTE) of the PACV, which would be enlarged to include the focal points for components one and two.
3. Linkages with other Projects
The main partners of the GEF Project are the PACV (baseline program), the multi-donor supported PRCM and the French Development Agency (Agence franpise de dheloppement, AFD. PRCM and OGM will be primarily technical partners as outlined in the detailed implementation arrangements for Components 1 and 2 (Annex 6). Close collaboration will also be sought with the French supported Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (Commission Sous- Rkgionale des Pgches, CSRP) on fisheries surveillance. Collaboration with the GEF financed Community-Based Land Management Project (Projet de Gestion Commcu~a~tairedes Terres, PGCT) has been included in the PGCT's design to ensure that selected CRDs in the coastal zone, form to the extent possible contiguous zones with PGCT intervention zones, thereby maximizing synergies and addressing downstream-upstream linkages. Collaboration with other donor and Government supported development activities will be sought through existing mechanisms at the PACV at especially the CRD (local development plan), as well as existing coordination mechanisms at the regional levels.
4. Monitoring and evaluation of outcomeslresults
The objective of the Project's Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) system is to respond to the internal management and supervision needs of all the project's stakeholders, including the executing agencies responsible for implementing the different project activities, CRDs for the micro-proj ects, the Steering Committee, and donors, including the Government. The monitoring system is organized as a network with each executing agency reporting to the CNC, which maintains a consolidated system. In order to avoid having to build a separate system, use will be
The present SC does not include the Ministry ofEnvironment. The SC will be expanded to include such representation prior to Grant Effectiveness.
15 made of existing project supported Monitoring and Evaluation Units in the CNC, CNSH-B, DNEF, DNS and the OGM.
Monitoring ofProject implementation will be the responsibility of each ofthe executing agencies who will provide semi-annual progress reports to the CNC. Participatory monitoring would be used to reinforce community ownership. These individual reports are compiled into a consolidated progress report for the entire project. An independent analysis will be conducted at mid-term and towards the end of the project (PACV, GEF Project and PGIE). These analyses will be conducted jointly by the Government of Guinea and co-financiers of the PACV and the GEF Project. These reviews will be based in part on the results and recommendations of the evaluations indicated above and will help make adjustments resulting in a more efficient implementation of the Project. A detailed joint PACVlGEF Project M&E manual has been prepared and reviewed by the Bank.
Impact indicators have been developed in accordance with guidelines for GEF-financed projects and include biologicallecological and socio-economic parameters. The baseline study carried out by OGM (finalized during preparation) will be repeated at end of project. This study would be funded under the first component, as they would have a dual purpose (general information on biodiversity status and project impact). OGM has launched an innovative approach towards indicator development which covers biodiversity, land tenure, rural activities and povertyhlnerability. The approach has been tested in two pilot sites in the coastal zone (around Tristao and Pongo) and represents a highly participatory approach to assess first community perceptions of livelihood and their environment before defining socio-economic and environmental indicators jointly with the communities. This approach allows that communities not only understand but truly own these indicators and use them for their local decision-making. Communities will also be empowered to become active participants in the local monitoring and evaluation process (data collection and interpretation). Collection of other indicators specific to this project, such as information on species (flora and fauna), water quality, land use, etc., has been tested as part of project preparation.
It should be recognized that long-term project impact cannot be easily measured during the five years of project implementation, acknowledging also that climatic influences play an important role, however, the collected data will contribute to a better knowledge of coastal zone issues, help make informed decisions and serve as a solid foundation to evaluate follow-on activities.
5. Sustainability and Replicability The project has been designed in line with the country’s relatively weak human resource, institutional and financial capacity and provides for piloting, testing, evaluating and adapting before scaling-up in a second site. Sustainability is a central theme of the proposed Project, which aims to enable integrated management of the coastal zone. Guinea has recognized that coastal and marine biodiversity concerns cannot be addressed in isolation, and will be affected by broader development decisions in and outside the coastal zone. The project will therefore also seek to support an improved legal and institutional fiamework, primarily in the form of environmental assessment regulations and harmonization of legislation, to ensure the judicious management of environmental and social factors and thus promote adoption of a sustainable economic development path. Moreover, the project will be firmly embedded in long-term sub-
16 regional efforts (see PRCM framework). Finally, the broader approach to local capacity building and menu of micro-projects eligible for funding under the project, which will be tested in up to 17 CRDs in the coastal zone, will be mainstreamed by the PACV following successful testing, ensuring replication over a larger area and sustainability beyond the project's implementation period.
The main sustainability elements are:
Targeted capacitv building at local, rerzional and national level: Project design emphasizes human resource capacity building as a key aspect to the sustainability of project objectives. Human resource capacity building is a longer term process, the project will contribute to attaining this long-term goal by: (i)supporting specific, targeted training activities for leaders in local governments (change agents); (ii)empowering local communities to participate in sustainable exploitation of their environment; and (iii)increasing stakeholder capacity to jointly plan, manage and monitor biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of the coastal zone, and environmental impact assessment processes more broadly.
Alternative livelihood options for communities: The project seeks to test and develop alternative livelihood strategies that will promote sustainable use of the local resource base. The LIF mechanism itself is not designed to be sustainable in the absence of follow-on funding, however, it is designed to help communities establish a minimum basis from which to escape the poverty trap which until presently is stifling local development and encouraging overuse of the resource base. The reasons underpinning this decision include: (i)the need to learn more about how best to work with communities and local resource users, and what type of alternative livelihood options exist before trying to fully institutionalize any one mechanism; and (ii)sustainable use of natural resources falls within a much broader rural development and natural resource management approach.
Integrated Co-Management: A multidisciplinary approach will be followed, supported by inter- institutional partnerships, to facilitate the bringing together of scientific and technical skills with public authorities for the purpose of disseminating knowledge and practices for the conservation and upholding of the coastal zone environment, and of disseminating the results to the country and the world community. It is hoped that the approach ofcombining the conservation ofpriority biodiversity sites with the improvement of socioeconomic conditions will give beneficiaries a better life, as well as the incentives and tools to preserve and sustainably use their local environment according to their needs and options. Since the proposed project implies a new approach in Guinea to sustainable coastal and marine development around RAMSAR sites, it is expected that the lessons learned will in the fbture be mainstreamed into other potential protected areas so as to lead to a wider coverage and network.
Participation: The adoption ofparticipatory planning mechanisms and strategic partnerships with stakeholders, as well as social assessments and monitoring of conditions ensuring social sustainability of the Project. Further, the project supports the establishment of partnerships with other public programs and civil society, together with other national and international institutions, to assure a more comprehensive approach to the root causes ofbiodiversity loss. The project will put key emphasis on participation of local communities throughout the process of
17 creating an ICZ around the TristaolAlcatraz site. Furthermore, the project will support income- generation activities to remove pressure on precious ecosystems and habitats (incentives).
Alternative financing for protected areas: The project will fund a detailed feasibility study under its component 2 to determine approaches of funding for the proposed ICZs. The results of the study will be evaluated by mid-term.
Ralicabilitv: The project’s design includes elements for replication in each component. Component 1 will develop an operational toolbox to facilitate establishment of a second ICZ (e.g., around Rio Pongo). Component 2 will provide a coordination platform (coastal forum) for all stakeholders and other initiatives to access lessons learned under the project. Component 3 and 4 will provide operational experiences to the overall PACV I1 implementation process but also guide scaling up during the third phase of the PACV. Component 5 will support the development of a specific replication strategy by mid-term.
Critical risks and possible controversial aspects
-Risk Risk Rating Risk Mitipation Measures From outputs to project M development objective Insufficient participation oflocal M hitial site selection included as stakeholders (communities and criteria that the CRDs had to have CRDs) in participatory process to prior involvement with PACV’s establish conservation participatory approach, which allows zoneslprotected areas. the GEF Project to build on a solid existing foundation. The implementation ofthe detailed project’s communication strategy and action plan in particular at local level (e.g. through local information and contact points) will ensure early and tailor-made dissemination ofproject information. Lack ofcapacities ofkey M The project design has been chosen to stakeholders (including insufficient respond to capacity bottlenecks. It communication and technical skills) will support targeted capacity to implement sustainable resource building measures under component 2 use and conservation zone and 4. In addition, key service management activities. providers receive support through other projectslprograms. The coastal forum will be used to address thematic issues,
18 Lack of funding to manage and S Zxpected management arrangements maintain coastal /marine PASin will be brought inline with financial resource-constrained environment :apacity (greater involvement oflocal :ommunities than central or leconcentrated Government Igencies). Support to policy changes ;hat would allow other sources of finance following completion of sustainable financing study. The Project also supports the creation of adapted local management schemes to match sustainability needs. From component to outputs ~ ~ ~~ Component 1: Insufficient incentives to choose M The package oftechnologies and sustainable use-based activities or support will have sufficient incentives sufficiently compensate to ensure positive economic returns to stakeholders for loss ofaccess. stakeholders. The participatory approach will be based not only on lessons in Guinea but from other coastal conservation and community- driven projects in neighboring countries. Absence oflegal framework M As part oftoolbox development, adapted to identified site implementation decrees will be management plans reviewed and where appropriate revisions prepared following consultations with local populations. Overlapping and ill-defined S This risk is reduced by focusing institutional mandates. implementation at the decentralized level and de-emphasizing central services. In addition, support is provided to Government through this project (multi-stakeholder contribution) and UNDP’s NCSA project to clarify roles and the legal fiamework.
Component 2: Ministry ofEnvironment (ME) S Support to ME will be evaluated on does not have the capacity to an annual basis and adjusted based or execute its responsibilities needs and on the results from the capacity assessment.
19 I Component 3 Viable options to replace N Alternatives fiom other countries or destructive behavior are not hewhere in the Guinea coastal zone available or adaptable. have been assessed, tested and adapted to the particular context with local stakeholders during project preparation to ensure a minimum set ofoptions is available at project start- UP* Component 4: Inadequate institutional fiamework M Government agencies and service providers will be trained prior to the start ofcapacity building activities in sustainable use planning techniques. The actual work will be contracted out, while supervision will remain a Government remonsibilitv. Component 5 Complex implementation M PACV has extensive experience with arrangements with multiple working on the basis ofmonitorable agencies. annual work programs with a large number ofagencies and service providers. The CNC will also be strengthened with a focal point working on these issues and a regional office will be created near the GEF Project intervention site.
National monitoring and evaluation S A project M&E system including systems (DNS, OGM, CNSH-B, indicators and feed-back loops has DNEF, PACV) cannot be been jointly reviewed and agreed streamlined and thus miss upon by PACV, OGM, CNSH-B and integrated data collection and DNEF. Overall responsibility for assessment (poverty-environment certain key data collection activities nexus, MDG) will be integrated into the existing institutional fiamework under the leadership ofthe DNS Overall risk rating S Risk Rating - H (High Risk), S (Substantial sk), M (Modest Ris N (Negligible or Low Risk)
The Country Financial Accountability Assessment (CFAA) revealed that the systems for planning, budgeting, monitoring and controlling public resources in Guinea are improving but remain at a level that they do not provide sufficient reasonable assurance that funds are used for the purpose intended. The risk of waste, diversion and misuse of funds was assessed as partially high. The overall Project risk fiom a financial management perspective is therefore considered
20 partially high. Nevertheless, various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed. The financial management arrangements of the project are designed to ensure that funds are used for the purpose intended, and timely information is produced for project management and government oversight, and facilitate the compliance with IDA fiduciary requirements.
As the CFAA recommendations on financial accountability reforms have not fully been implemented yet, the Country Risk is assessed as partially high.
The table below identifies the key risks that Project management may face in achieving its objectives and provides a basis for determining how these risks should be addressed.
Risk Risk Mitigation Measure
Inherent Financial Management Risks: M The existing team has adequate Funds may not be used in an experience and audits have not efficient and economical way and shown any quality related issues. exclusively for purposes intended Strong internal control procedures due to corruption and poor have been set up and will be governance. maintained throughout Project implementation.
Confusion may arise between GEF M A dedicated accountant will handle and IDA transactions. Project financial management under supervision ofthe senior accountant ofthe PACV. Financial Management Control Risks: M Training of new accountant is Teething problems may jeopardize expected to be provided by a FM timeliness and accuracy offinancial Consultant before effectiveness. report and thus slow down the disbursement orocess. H = High S = Substantial M = Moderate N = Lowlnegligible
Various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed and thus the Project risk fkom a financial management perspective could be moderate provided the risk mitigating measures are properly implemented.
6. Loanlcredit conditions and covenants
There are no conditions for Board presentation.
The following conditions would apply to effectiveness:
21 e adopted the Project Implementation Manual, in form and substance satisfactory to the World Bank; e established, in form and substance satisfactory to the World Bank, the steering committee set up under the Recipient’s Village Communities Support Program; selected an auditor with qualifications, experience and terms of reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposes ofProject implementation; e selected, on a competitive basis, a Natural Resource Management Focal Point, with qualifications, experience and terms of reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposes ofProj ect implementation.
The following covenants would apply to GEF Project implementation:
Ministry of Environment will be added as member of the SC within one month &om effectiveness; CNC to be maintained at all times; URC Bok6 to be maintained at all times; Safeguard policies as defined in the safeguard documentation will be applied at all times; Annual reporting arrangements would follow the same calendar as those detailed in the PACV financing agreement; Work programs and associated budgets and procurement plans will be submitted to IDA on same schedule as detailed in the PACV financing agreement; Mid-Term Review to be carried out no later than December 2008; and All agreed studies for the Mid-Term Review (technical audit and financial audit ofmicro- projects, economic and financial impact analysis, and sustainable financing of ICZs) will be made available to IDA no later than October 3 1,2008.
D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY 1. Economic and financial analyses
Like the PACV, the GEF Project does not lend itself to classic quantitative cost-benefit analysis because on the one hand, the expected capacity building benefits have undetermined life expectancies and cannot be quantified in monetary terms, while on the other hand, the demand- driven nature of investments also leaves the specific investments that will be made under the GEF Project undetermined. Not enough is known about investment attitudes of the rural communities to attempt a simulation exercise. However, it is possible to demonstrate in qualitative terms that economic and social returns are likely fkom the capacity building and the LIF components. A more detailed analysis is presented in Annex 9. The analysis follows recommendations adopted by the GEF on cost-effectiveness analysis (see also Council Document GEFIC.25111 dated April 29,2005).
The recently released UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre report: provides estimates of the value of mangrove forests &om regulating services (shoreline protection, water quality
UNEP WCMC, ~horeZ~neprotectionand other ecosystem sewicesfrom mangroves and coral regs, UNEP- WCMCKJNEP 2006.
22 maintenance and climate) and other ecosystem services (fisheries and other marine products, forest products and traditional medicines), Based on their analysis, the accumulated value of these services per square kilometer may range from US$54,000 to US$900,000, depending on location (population densities and services exploited). Based on these data alone, the arrest of the decline in mangrove forest cover and sustainable use of ecosystem resources would therefore likely have substantial benefits.
2. Technical
For many of the problems evoked above, technical solutions exist. Solar drylng of salt or less wood consuming ways of smoking fish exist and have been successfully tested in the coastal zone. Improved ways to increase yields and maintain soil fertility ofrice fields have been known in many countries and tested in the coastal zone. They are, however, not all suitable to the specifics of the region or have a need to be adapted to local circumstances. During the preparation process particular attention has been placed on the identification of appropriate technologies, to prevent the inclusion ofwell-intentioned activities that are likely to fail,
The STAP Review focuses on the scientific and technical soundness of the project and is presented in Annex 16. The STAP Reviewer’s comments were requested at an earlier stage and have been incorporated into the project design. They greatly contributed to strengthening the overall technical quality ofproject design.
3. Fiduciary
Financial management issues (see Annex 7):
Financial management procedures have been adapted from the manual prepared for the first phase of the PACV, primarily to reflect the different fimding source. The CNC would be responsible for financial management and an accountant would be added to enable it to assume the additional workload resulting from the management of the GEF Grant. Financial management capacity of the CNC has been evaluated annually during first phase PACV implementation.
The overall conclusion of the assessment is that the current financial management arrangements are satisfactory to meet IDA FM requirements though the contract for external auditors under the PACV should be extended to the new operation.
By effectiveness, the project will not be ready for report-based disbursements. Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e., direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments. After Project implementation start-up, the Recipient may request conversion to report-based disbursements, subject to a review by IDA to determine if the Project is eligible.
The financial management capacity of CNSH-B has been evaluated during appraisal and an action plan prepared. The Ministries of Planning, Environment and Agriculture and Livestock will not directly manage funds as they do not have sufficient capacity. During Project
23 preparation, funds for these ministries were administered by the CNC. This practice worked satisfactorily and will continue during Project implementation.
Procurement Arrangements (see Annex 8):
Procurement would be handled by the CNC using an adapted version of PACV’s present procurement manual to reflect recent changes in procurement guidelines. The same ceilings would apply to the GEF Project as applicable to the PACV. Procurement capacity of the CNC has been evaluated annually during the course of first phase PACV implementation. The procurement capacity of CNSH-B was evaluated during appraisal and found acceptable to the Bank. The Ministries of Planning, Environment and Agriculture and Livestock will not directly manage procurement as they do not have sufficient capacity. During Project preparation procurement for these ministries was administered by the CNC. This practice worked satisfactorily and will continue during Project implementation.
Demand-driven micro-projects under the LIF will be procured in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 3.15 of the procurement guidelines. These guidelines provide much flexibility for working with communities in as much as procedures are acceptable to IDA. Procurement procedures for demand-driven micro-projects have been detailed in the existing Project Implementation Manual. These have proven to ensure transparent and efficient management of local procurement. Unlike the PACV, where all micro-projects are executed through the CRD, under the GEF Project, micro-projects can also be executed by formally recognized groups or associations.
4. Social
Local community involvement is critical for the success ofthe project and the establishment and management of a coastal conservation zone. Activities during preparation included local diagnostic and stakeholder mapping, surveys, broad-based information workshops and communication sessions. Project start-up activities would include training, field visits, villagelcommunity meetings and workshops at the project target sites. Project impact studies will retain social indicators, which have been developed with participation of local communities and were already used for the baseline study, which was carried out as part of GEF Project preparation.
A broader and site-specific (Tristao) stakeholder assessment was carried out as part of preparation. In addition to the communication and environmental and social assessment studies it provides a detailed roadmap to include the various community groups and in particular the most vulnerable ones. Instead of having a separate stakeholder plan, the project will ensure that all recommendations of the above documents will be embedded in component implementation and monitored. This will prevent social exclusion and work toward the empowennent of all groups so as to increase their capacity to manage the resources ofthe selected intervention areas.
In terms of social safeguards, OPBP 4.12 related to Involuntary Resettlement was triggered and a Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) has been prepared. An RPF as a mitigation measure
24 was chosen because some of the protective measures proposed by the project may lead to restrictions in accessing part of the natural resources by the local communities. The RPF spells out the participatory tools and procedures that will be used to associate the local communities in the process of decision making and in the management of the natural resources in the protected areas. The RPF was reviewed and cleared by the Bank and subsequently disclosed in the country and at the Bank’s InfoShop on February 17, 2006. The initial RPF had been disclosed on December 1, 2005. The RPF is the same as that prepared for the second phase of the baseline project.
The Project will not acquire land or any other land related assets, neither through its natural resources protection component nor through the micro-projects that it intends to finance to help the communities generate additional sources of income. Hence, no Resettlement Policy Framework was deemed necessary to be prepared.
5. Environment
As part ofpreparation of the first phase ofthe base program only an environmental management plan was prepared, which was in accordance with Bank environmental guidelines at the time. The second phase of the base-program has a category ‘B’ rating. In fklfillment of the World Bank Environmental Assessment guidelines OPIBPIGP 4.01, and in conformity to the recently adopted national environmental impact assessment legislation, the Borrower has prepared an environmental and social assessment, which has been reviewed by the Bank.
The GEF Project is likewise classified as a category B project, safeguard screening factor S2. Although the project is designed to have mainly positive environmental and social impacts, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared, cleared by the Bank and made publicly available in-country on December 8,2005.
6. Safeguard policies
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes NO Environmental Assessment (OPISPIGP 4.01) [XI El Natural Habitats (OPIBP 4.04) [XI Pest Management (OP 4.09) [I Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.1 1) [I Involuntary Resettlement (OPIBP 4.12) [XI Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, being revised as OP 4.10) [I Forests (OPIBP 4.36) 1.1 Safety ofDams (OPISP 4.37) [I Projects in Disputed Areas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* [I Projects on International Waterways (OPISP/GP 7.50) [I
* By supporting theproposedproject, the Bank does not intend to prejudice thefinal determination of the parties‘ claims on the disputed areas
25 7. Policy Exceptions and Readiness
No policy exceptions are sought.
Prior to appraisal, the finalized GEF Project Local Investment Fund, M&E Manual, and Financial and Administrative Manual were reviewed and found satisfactory. The overall Project Implementation Manual was not available prior to negotiations and finalization of this manual has become a condition of effectiveness. The first 18-month procurement plan was finalized at appraisal. Most baseline studies, except for detailed inventories of key species, have been completed and reviewed as part of preparation. The inventory of detailed studies was started as part of Project preparation, but could not be completed prior to the preparation grant closing date.
26 Annex 1: Country and Sector or Program Background GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Guinea has a rich endowment of natural resources (renewable and non-renewable) and its economy is almost entirely dependent on these. The rural poor are particularly dependent on renewable natural resources and therefore the sustainable management of those resources. Mineral mining and agriculture represent the most important economic activities, providing employment to about 80 percent of total population. Agriculture is the dominant activity ofthe rural population (65 percent of employment), while 30 percent of the rural population is practicing livestock holding. The importance of fishing (5 percent of rural employment) is reflected in its contribution to the national diet (40 percent of animal proteins are provided by fish consumption). Household energy depends for 99 percent on wood fuels, and the healthcare system depends for 80 percent on traditional medicine practices, which rely on the availability of flora and fauna species.
There are three main sector issues affecting the coastal zone that the GEF Project will seek to address, at least in part:
(i) Sector issue 1: Role of Guinea’s coastal and marine resource base including global biodiversity significance and its threats Guinea’s coastal complex hosts exceptional biodiversity, due to its remarkable landscape features. It is characterized by an extensive interpenetration of terrestrial and aquatic environments, including vast estuaries, a large archipelago rising from a continental shelf, and seasonally flooded coastal plains. The Guinea Current stretches along the Atlantic African coast from about Guinea Bissau to Angola. It is ranked among the world richest coastal and off-shore reserves in terms offishery resources, oil and gas, precious minerals, its potential for eco-tourism and its functioning as important reservoir of marine and coastal biodiversity of global significance. The particularity of the Guinea portion lies in the fact that it contains the widest part of the continental shelf of the Guinea Current, reaching 160 km at the north-western border with Guinea Bissau. This part of the coastal zone barely experiences any upwelling from deeper waters. Upwelling usually drains sediment and nutrients that are brought in from the upstream inland waters to the coast towards the open sea. Hence, without much upwelling the coastal waters accumulate much more nutrients and therefore become very productive. The main biotopes found in the coastal zone, include mangroves, sandbanks and mudflats, shallow estuarine waters and sub-humid Guinean forests. Practically the entire coastal zone has been identified as priority area for biodiversity conservation, as part of what is left of the Upper Guineas Forest. Remaining patches of this forest are found along the West African coast from Guinea to Togo.
Guinea’s total area under mangroves constitutes one quarter of West Afkica’s total mangrove wetland -stretching from Senegal to northern Angola- the ecological hctionof which is closely intertwined with that of the upstream (e.g., coastal plateau) and down stream (continental sea shelf) ecosystems. The extreme irregularity of the mangrove dominated shoreline, harbors a multitude of niches along the land-water interface. These habitats, particularly the marine and estuarine waters, are known to be among the richest on the West African coast in terms of diversity, productivity and food potential. They are essential for the survival of several species
27 (e.g., migrating birds) that are globally endangered or threatened, and for species that are economically important (fish and game).
Ecosystem Diversity: Despite a lower diversity than Asia mangroves (only six species of mangroves), the West African coast has the best developed and most extensive mangroves in Africa. The most extensive areas are in Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, both of which were formerly almost entirely fringed with mangroves; although much has been cleared they still have some 200,0007 hectares and 100,000 hectares respectively. Mangroves are a very important feature of the zone despite extensive logging activities. Despite the importance of this region for mangroves, relatively few are protected in West Africa and there is currently no strategy for the protection ofthe six classified RAMSAR sites along Guinea’s coastal zone in place,
Species Diversity: In comparison with the shores of East Africa and the western Atlantic, the tropical Atlantic coast ofAfiica has an impoverished biota. At the same time, there are relatively high levels of endemism in many groups. The marine resources play an important role in the local, national and regional economies. The west coast has an estimated 239 species of reef fish, of which over 70 percent are endemic. The Gulf of Guinea islands probably have a particularly high level of endemism with the shore fish. The mainland coast is visited seasonally by millions of migratory birds (especially waders).
The various ecosystems of the countries have not been well studied (besides the mangrove habitats) and biodiversity is poorly documented. This might explain why the conservation and protection of Guinea’s natural coastal resources has not yet adequately received support by the international community. Potential links between biodiversity conservation and wal development have not been established in national sectoral policies and strategies. In the meantime, local (increasing) population continues to exploit unsustainably Guinea’s coastal and marine resources. This threat has been exacerbated over the past decade by the enormous influx of refugees along Guinea’s borders with Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as by the persistence ofpoverty and lack of alternative sources ofincome among the rural population.
Aside from the worrisome reduction in the volume of flora and fauna, the equilibrium of the three ecosystems described above is at risk and results in the destruction of globally important habitats (e.g., nesting and reproduction sites in particular for birds and fisheries stocks). The impact of these unsustainable exploitations has only been partially assessed: Studies carried out by the CNSHI3 and IRD on Guinean fisheries stocks indicate a reduction of stocks to one-fifth of their former levels over the past ten years. This dramatic drop is partly due to disorganized exploitation. Time series data for the same period also show a significant reduction in plant cover in the area. Erosion, reduced soil fertility and the impacts on downstream ecosystems are intensifylng. Studies performed by the National Directorate for Water and Forestry (Direction ~utionuZedes Euux et For&, DNEF) indicate a reduction in areas traditionally rich in wild game, an abandonment ofthe practice ofhunting in certain localities due to a lack ofgame, and a reduction, or even disappearance, ofsome wild species.
The underlying multiple and inter-related root causes for these threats are cutting across sectors and can be summarized by the following categories (not in order ofpriority):
This estimated varies by source from 200,000 to 280,000 ha. The 200,000 ha is based on 1997 data.
28 National context: 0 Elevated poverty level Increased population pressures 0 Increased urbanization, especially in coastal zone 0 Weak legislative, policy, institutional and financial framework
Resource uses: Extensive cropping systems 0 Extensive mining systems, focusing on surface mining 0 Uncontrolled wood collection 0 Extensive livestock systems 0 Increased water pollution from poorly planned economic development activities 0 Uncontrolled hawesting ofnative plant species Uncontrolled fishing 0 Uncontrolled hunting
(io Sector issue 2: Socio-economic context and ant~ropogenicpressures of Guinea’s coastal zone Studies of coastal population trends over time indicate a spectacular increase of 292 percent between 1963 and 1996. This population explosion is due to the fact that the coast is traditionally a resource-rich area (agro-pastoralism, minerals, fish) and that this is where most ofthe cities are located, including the capital, Conakry. Forty percent of Guinea‘s population lives on fifteen percent of the territory, which leads to a high degree of exploitation of the surrounding ecosystems. The phenomenon of immigration may continue and lead to a doubling ofpopulation density in 15 years. In summary, the extraordinary richness of this environment and its unusual continental shelf are being exploited more and more intensively by an impoverished population that often pursues a short-term strategy vis-A-vis resource preservation and sustainability. The pressure on the environment is exceeding its capacity for regeneration. Unless current ways of managing these natural resources change, an irreversible degradation of the ecosystems is inevitable. This would have direct economic and environmental consequences for the population at the local level, as well as impact medium and long-term national development strategies. It would further jeopardize sub-regional and international efforts to protect and maintain significant coastal ecosystem in particular related to Guinea’s important mangrove stands (one fourth ofthe total in West Africa).
(iio Sector issue 3: Inadequate legal, policy and institutional framework As in many other countries in the sub-region, the implementation and enforcement of policy, legal and institutional fi-amework for coastal zone related activities is insufficient to cope with the complexity and dynamics of integrated coastal zone management. The current related legal framework include: the 1987 Environment Code, 1999 Forestry Code, 1990 Financial and Fiscal Regime of CRDs, 1995 Law, establishing Mining Code, 1994 Law, establishing Water Code 1995 Code ofLivestock Farming and animal products, 1995 Law establishing Code ofMaritime Fisheries, 1996 Law organizing continental fishing in Guinea, 1995 Law establishing Code pastoral, 1997 Law adopting and enacting Code for wild fauna protection and hunting regulations. A large number of institutions linked to various sectors are engaged in many
29 economic activities that affect directly or indirectly coastal wetlands and marine ecosystems. These institutions have different mandates that are based on laws and policies that differ in more than one way. The need to ensure collaboration among these institutions in order to develop an integrated coastal zone management policy faces several challenges, such as (i)low technical, human and financial capacity of many of these institutions in coastal resource management; and (ii)lack of effective mechanism to coordinate activities and establish consultation among various institutions and donor-funded activities whose activities have direct impacts on coastal ecosystems.
The weak capacity of institutions at national and regional level to plan, manage and monitor the area's natural resources and coastal ecosystems is a barrier to the effective protection of coastal biodiversity in Guinea. In addition, the multitude of line ministries having a stake in coastal management raises the issue of leadership, coordination and cost-effectiveness. The four Ministries most implicated in the GEF Project are the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, the Ministry ofFisheries and the Ministry ofPlanning,
Two issues that affect all government Structures in Guinea to various degrees are the low salaries and absence of work incentives, leading to inter-institutional conflicts when external source of funding, and lack ofadequate operating funds.
The newly created Ministry of Environment (October 2004) has the mandate to (i)conceive, develop and coordinate the implementation of the govemmental policy in the domains of environmental protection, management of natural resources and overall improvement of quality of life, (ii)provide an adequate legal and regulatory framework including sound monitoring and enforcement, (iii)define strategies to promote the urban and rural environment, protection of natural resources, sustainable use, biodiversity, and (iv) restore degraded areas in particular in mining areas. Its main structures involved in the Project are: the Direction Nationale de la Protection de la Nature (DNPN), the Centre de Protection Environnemental du Milieu Marin et des Zones Cdtikres, the Centre National d 'Observation et de Suivi E~vironnemental,the Centres de Documentation et d ~nformation Environnementale, the Fonds de Sauvegarde de I 'Environnement, the Centre National de Gestion des Aires Protbgbes, the Inspections Rbgionales de E 'Environnement, the Directions Prbfectorales de l'~nviron~ement,the Services Sous-prhfectoraux de I 'Environnement. However, most functions are currently not yet fully operational, as ME lacks detailed job descriptions and work programs, equipment, qualified staff, and budget.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MinistGre de I'Agriculture et de I'Elevage, Mi%), through its National Directorate for Forestry and Water (Direction Nationale des Eaux et Fdrets, DNEF), and the Ministry of Environment have a direct role in the GEF Project as they share mandates over protected areas. Both ministries lack sufficient resources, however, to carry out this mandate, even for existing areas. One main problem facing DNEF is controlling widespread theft ofwood for the production ofcharcoal for urban markets.
Similar institutional problems plague: Ministry of Fisheries, where lack of operating funds render surveillance of fishing agreements difficult, compounded with an absence of a monitoring system that takes
30 advantage of community interests in preserving artisanal fisheries from outside poachers (industrial or smaller-scale commercial). 0 Ministry ofPlanning which has, like the Ministry ofEnvironment, seen its status changed several times from Ministry to that of an attached structure dependent on the Ministry of Finance and has as a result overlapping responsibilities.
Results of a GEF supported and UNDP managed National Capacity Self-Assessment are expected to be made available by mid-term of GEF Project implementation and used to address critical capacity gaps in the area ofbiodiversity conservation, as they apply to the Coastal Zone.
Government Strategy .
The Govemment adopted the National Strategy and Action Plan for Biological Diversity in 2002. The proposed action for the conservation of biological diversity include: (i)the need to strengthen Government institutions to define policy, collect and analyze information and enforce existing legislation; (ii)reinforcing the fight against poverty; (iii)increase the participation of local communities in conservation activities; (iv) improve the organizational capacity of communities to better take into consideration conservation activities; (v); preservation of fragile or threatened ecosystems of pronounced global and national interest; (vi) strengthen the land management and land use planning process; (vii) intensify the research, inventory and collection of varieties of threatened varieties for their conservation; and (viii) put in place a framework for prevention ofbio-diversity related risks.
It needs to be recognized that for many years, Guinea conservation efforts focused on forest ecosystem protection and did not target the coastal zone (e.g., the Government established classified forests to conserve and protect biodiversity in-situ in 1947). This leads to the current situation where Guinea has not yet established formally protected areas in its coastal zone, as is the case in neighboring Guinea-Bissau with which the coastal zone shares many characteristics. However, six RAhlSAR sites in the coastal zone were designated in 1993 as wetlands of international importance because of their unique biodiversity.
These sites are: Alcatraz Island, Tristao Island, Rio Pongo, Blanche Island, Konkourk and Rio Kapatchez, All these sites are state-owned and officially managed by the National Directorate for Forestry and Water Resources (Direction ati ion ale des Eaux et For&, DNEF). With the exception of Alcatraz Island (classified as sanctuary), no formal designation has been extended and no financial or technical measures have been taken to provide protection to any of these areas from poachers and illegal logging and to support local authorities or communities in this regard.
Looking at other countries in the sub-region which have established marine protected areas (MPAs) to protect significant biodiversity, the Government of Guinea committed itself to undertake concrete steps for the protection and sustainable use ofits coastal resources. Supported by the Regional Program for the Conservation of West Africa’s Coastal Zone (Programme rkgional de conservation de la zone c6tiSre et marine d’Afriique de I’Ouest, PRCM), whose member states include Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Senegal, Gambia, Mauritania, Cap Verde and international partners such as IUCN, WWF, FIBA, the Government of Guinea has engaged itself
31 over the past 2 years in an inter-sectoral and sub-regional stakeholder consultation process to identify threats, root causes and options to remove these barriers to coastal biodiversity conservation and local development.
One result was the pre-identification oftwo specific coastal RAMSAR sites for the establishment of a protected area in 2003. The area includes the group of islands “Tristao” (RAMSAR site no. 572) and Alcatraz (RAMSAR site no. 517), with a total area of 95 ha (see Annex 4 for details of the ecological and socio-cultural criteria list). Additional research, information collection and analysis activities to assess the potential ofadditional sites are being carried out as part ofproject preparation.
Criteria used to select the pilot sites supported by the project Two sites, TristaolAlcatraz Islands and Rio Pongo were pre-selected on the basis of the following criteria: High globally important biodiversity value for conservation and representativeness for coastal zone ecosystems High opportunities for transboundary cooperation (in particular with Guinea-Buissau High potential for stabilizing resource base (high species reproduction potential) High poverty incidence with low socio-economic development, limited national and international action Potential for leveraging resources from other partners Community-willingness to participate Replicability ofapproach for establishment ofprotected area Presence of local and sub-regional inadequate management activities threatening habitat and species
In the absence of a policy or legal framework for MPAs in Guinea, there is no official definition of an MPA available. There are in addition, many different types of MPA, varying considerably in their purpose or objective, size and level of protection, and name and the legislation under which they are established. Given the importance of the interlinkages between the different ecological zones in the coastal area through a dense hydrological network, greatly improved management of the three main ecological zones is needed if the health and productivity of coastal and marine ecosystems and their related biodiversity are to be maintained. As the term MPA seems to be mostly focused on marine resources, the term integrated conservation zone (ICg is used in this document, except for where it concerns already established MPAs in other countries.
The preferred approach in Guinea is to establish a network or system of protected areas in the coastal zone that covers the diversity of distinguishable ecosystem types, thus protecting species by protecting their habitats. A representative system can help to:
0 maintain biodiversity 0 maintain ecological processes and systems 0 allow species to evolve and function undisturbed 0 provide a safety margin against human-induced and natural disasters 0 provide a solid ecological base from which threatened species can recover.
32 Lessons learned from other countries form the basis for this approach. They include the following: 0 most bioregions are under-represented; 0 many habitats types are underrepresented; 0 most areas are too small to be effective (irrespective oftheir level ofprotection); e most areas are relatively isolated from each other; and 0 most areas are not managed or assessed.
In addition, it is clear from experience elsewhere that the areas cannot be suitably protected unless supporting activities are undertaken in the upstream parts of the ecosystem as continued poor natural resource use here will undermine the positive effect ofproject activities downstream and pose a high risk that the project may not be able to meet its objectives. Functional linkages between the different parts of the ecosystem need to be maintained and the health and productivity of coastal and marine ecosystems and their related biodiversity are to be protected. In order to achieve this, the project would adopt a watershed approach in which support activities for local populations are carried out in the watersheds that form part of a coherent ecosystem with the three RAIvlSAR sites supported under the project. All CRDs covering these watersheds would be covered by the fourth year of the project. The Government of Guinea is strongly committed (i)to implement its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and associated sector strategies, (ii)to strengthen its legal, institutional and policy framework for biodiversity conservation and integrated coastal zone management, (iii)to build and reinforce targeted capacity at national coastal zone planning and research level as well as at decentralized level, (iv) to establish and manage its first marine protected area as a tool to contribute to the long-term ecological viability of coastal and marine systems, to maintain ecological process and systems and to protect its biodiversity at all levels, and (v) to support the institutionalization and further strengthening of its initial coastal monitoring and evaluation efforts of the coastal zone dynamics.
33 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financed by the Bank andor other Agencies GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Sector issue Project and Project Status Latest Supervision (ISR) ratings addressed Implementation Development progress (IP) objective (DO) Rural and local Village Communities Support HS HS development Program I1 Rural infrastructure National Rural infkastructure I1 MU MS Public sector and Second phase ofCapacity- pipeline pipeline governance Building for Service Delivery Program Education First phase ofthe Education for S S All Program Energy Decentralized Rural Energy S MS Project Fisheries (regional) Strategic Partnership for Fisheries pipeline pipeline in LME Africa Natural resource Community-Based Land Launch expected managemenaand Management (PGCT) in August 2006 degradation
Natural resource Programme d'Appui 21 la Gestion EU 2000 - management IntCgrCe des Ressources Closing date: Naturelles des Bassins du Niger et Dec. 3 1,2005 de la Gambie (AGIR) Regional : Guinea and transboundary areas with Guinea Bissau, Mali and Senegal (EU) Natural resource Plan Rkgional de Conservation [UCN, WWF, 2004 - 2008 management C8tih-e et Marine (PRCM) de FIBA, CI 1'Afrique de 1'Ouest. Regional: Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal (consortium ofNGOs and donors) Natural resource Combating Living Resource UNDPrnP1 200412005 - 2009 management Depletion and Coastal Area GEF (US$55.3 Degradation in the Guinea Current million) through Ecosystem-based Regional Actions Regional: Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo DR, Cote d'lvoire, Gabon, Ghana, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia,
34 Nigeria, Sa0 Tome & Principe, Sierra Leone, Togo.
Public sector and National Capacity Needs Self- LJNDPlGEF 2005 - 2007 governance Assessment for Global [US$0.225 Environment Management million) WP)
Natural resource Creation ofa Guinea-Guinea- GEF proposal management Bissau transboundary park UNDP stage
Natural resource Small-Grants Program UNDPlGEF on-going management (US$5-50,000 per proposal)
Natural Resource Integrated Management ofLand UNEPlGEF ongoing Management Degradation through Sustainable Small-scale Industrial Utilization ofMedicinal, Aromatic and Pesticidal Plants project M&E Observatoire de la GuinCe AFD, FFEM, 2000 - 0612006 (closing Maritime AFW, date) Universit6 Bordeaux 3
Fisheries Projet d’Appui au Dkveloppement AFD, BAD Ongoing de laPkhe Artisanale et Pisciculture (AfDB, AFD)
IPDO Ratings: HS = Highly Satisfactory; S = Satisfactory; MS = Moderately Satisfactory; MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory; U = Unsatisfactory; HU = Highly Unsatisfactory
The project will complement (though not overlap) and liaise with several other GEF-supported activities in Guinea using existing PACV coordinating mechanisms. One such program is the GEF-funded National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management (NCSA), a UNDP-assisted review ofnational capacity building needs related to globally valued environmental resources, including biodiversity which is expected to start in late 2005. Close collaboration will be assured through the involvement ofthe same governmental institutions and in particular by the Ministry of Environment. Similarly, the Integrated Management of Land Degradation through Sustainable Small-Scale Industrial Utilization of Medicinal, Aromatic and Pesticidal Plants project, a UNEP-assisted West African regional program, involves Guinea and
35 three other countries in an effort to halt land degradation through community-based land and biodiversity preservation and the development ofrelevant income-generating activities.
Other projects that provide synergies to this proposal include the World Bank and GEF co- financed Guinea-Bissau Coastal and Biodiversity Management Project, with which the project will establish a strong rapport for potential transboundary work on protected areas and conservation issues. Having both of these projects implemented by the World Bank allows tremendous opportunity for synergies to develop and lessons to be shared between the initiatives. Additionally, the project will ensure collaboration with the UNDP/UNEP executed Guinea Current LME project, which spans the entire west coast of Africa. The focus of activities in Guinea ofthis UNDP project will be on conducting a marine productivity assessment, integrating Guinea into the larger regional Environmental Information Management scheme of the project, and fisheries assessments, providing clear routes for strong collaboration, but no overlap among the projects. Activities fbnded under component 2.2 will allow for this.
36 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Results Framework
Outcome Indicators Use of Outcome Information The GEF Project’s overall Effective participation of letermine overall effectiveness of development objective is to promote communities living around the his approach and make adjustments rational management ofGuinea’s protected area in its n the individual components, coastal biodiversity for both management, through the mplementation arrangements, and conservation and sustainable establishment of a stakeholder xaining activities as necessary. development ends in selected management committee. priority areas, with a particular Stabilization of natural resource htegrate lessons learned from emphasis on assisting communities base in areas under cultivation in :omunity activities into the PACV in and around these priority areas to project watershed target sites by md mainstream successful activities. plan, implement and maintain end of project (about 10,000 ha) environmentally sustainable and as measured through technical socially inclusive alternative audits; livelihoods options. Positive trend for key species and water quality indicators The GEF Project’s global (baseline to end of Project) based environmenta~objective is to on the indicators detailed in the strengthen the conservation of Project Impact Evaluation globally and nationally significant Manual; and habitats and species in Guinea’s ME capable ofguiding proposed Coastal Zone in priority areas and on-going development encompassing several coastal activities in coastal zone as RAMSAR sites. measured through the technical audits
Intermediate Results Results Indicators for Each Use of Results Monitoring One per Component Component Component One: Component One: Component One: Protection and conservation of coastal RAMSAR sites
Obiective: Management ofa pilot Formal establishment ofan ICZ Year 1-2: assess capacity oflocal protected area around Islands of in TristaolAlcatraz site (85,000 stakeholders (communities as well TristaolAlcatraz in collaboration ha) by year 3 following mapping, as local and regional government with local, regional and national socio-economic stakeholder authorities and service providers) to stakeholders and international analysis, ecosystem assessment develop ICZ management plan and partners, based on principle ofICZ and fauna, flora inventories adapt capacity building activities management to empower and benefit Clearly defined local accordingly. coastal communities. responsibilities over terrestrial and marine ecosystem (resources Year 1-3: assess operational including species and habitats). performance ofbeneficiary groups Preparatory work completed on and local governments and identify second coastal ICZ around Rio any policy and training gaps. Pongo by end of project (30,000 ha) Permanent coastal zone impact monitoring systems for target
37 end ofyear 1. 0 Replicable tool kit to establish, manage and monitor ICZs developed, tested, disseminated and adapted by local and regionai stakeholders by year 4. Component Two 2: Component Two: Component Two: Enabling environment for integrated coastal zone management
Objective: Supporting enabling Strengthened capacity ofME to Year 1-2: assess capacity ofME at environment for ICZ management in develop, approve and enforce central and deconcentrated levels Guinea policy and regulatory (EWSEA) and take appropriate training and instruments for sustainable institutional measures management ofthe coastal zone. Year 4: assess arrangements for the Detailed proposal ofsustainable adoption and implementation ofthe financing mechanism for ICZs financing mechanism including local and regional contributions developed with particular emphasis on financing scheme for ICZs. 0 Permanent information and data Year 3: improve quality and hub related to Guinea's coastal accessibility ofinformation, and zone in place and widely used. sustainability of institutional 0 Permanent mechanism for arrangements for documentation coastal zone coordination and Year 3: irrrprove participation, exchange is operational quality and timeliness offorum meetings and recommendations Component Three: Component Three: Component Three: Local Investment Fund
Objective: Provide matching grants 60% of participating communities Year 2-4: assess quality ofmicro- to eligible groups in the pilot CRDs, satisfactorily implement adapted project implementation, execution so they have the means to implement natural resource use activities as and maintenance and adjust capacity priority activities emphasizing identified in their local development building activities ofcomponent 4. environmentally sustainable and plans (PDL) and annual investment Year 2 and 3: reviseladjust loss of socially inclusive alternative Plans (PA% access compensatory activities and livelihoods options identified in their matching grant subsidies based on local development plans. experience Viable technological alternatives Year 3 : update mix oftechnologies adapted to local circumstances are based on local constraints and available. experience (financiaYenvironmenta1 returns).
Component Four: Component Four: Component Four: Support for Local Capacity Building Objective: Local governments are 60% ofproject communities have Year 1-3: assess capacity and empowered and have capacity to integrated and prioritized improved performance of local stakeholders satisfactorily integrate sustainable natural resource management (beneficiary groups, local natural resource use in their local activities in their local development governments and service providers) development plans. plans; and adjust capacity building activities accordingly.
38 Component Five Component Five Component Five Program Management, Monitoring and Evaluation
The objective ofthis component is - 80% ofproject activities identified Yr. 1 - 4: Assess whether capacity to ensure cost-effective, efficient and in annual work plans have been ofCNC, URC and other agencies streamlined project implementation satisfactorily completed by end of involved in Project implementation ofthe four other components. each year and within budget. have is adequate for project - Semi-annual progress reports implementation and associated produced ontime and with reporting. satisfactory quality. - Performance and impact monitoring reports produced on time and with satisfactory quality.
39 0 d
I
B 8 z 0 I 1
I 1
I 1 E E E 5 5 a
0 0 .5 3 73
I
da
@ oa I m73 d
4.CI 3* 4%
I I s0 s s I 00 z z
g g 0s 1 W W 00
s 22
g s W z
s s g z z
s 0 I I I Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E)
The overall objective ofthe project-related M&E is to ensure better planning, targeting, feedback to relevant stakeholders, and timely decision-making in order to improve service delivery. It will help to:
- improve management ofprograms, LIF sub-projects and supporting activities - ensure optimum use offunds and other resources - draw lessons from experience so as to improve the relevance, methods and outcomes - improve service delivery in order to promote active community participation, quality ofsubprojects, transparency and accountability with a view to ensure that resources made available to subprojects are used to meet the intended purposes - strengthen the capacity of agencies, non-governmental organizations and local communities to monitor and evaluate - improve information sharing systems and enhance advocacy for policies, programs and resources that improve the CMBM contribution towards coastal poverty alleviation and sustainable environmental management - improve national and local capacity for effective data collection on keystone species
The GEF Project will have a results-based M&E system that will monitor project processes using the following methods and tools (fully aligned with PACV I1 M&E system but includes additional and innovative features to respond to project design :
Detailed baseline studies (during preparation) established for all three CRDs at the beginning of the project on the basis of previous work done by OGM and of the complementary studies @NEF, CNSH-B and OGM) that were conducted in the three domains: biodiversity, activity systems and poverty. An evaluation system consisting of four modules: state of coastal and marine ecosystem (animal and plant biodiversity); rural activity systems evolution; poverty and capacities (according to A. Sen) dashboard and technical follow-up on implementation of the project. Each module includes a certain number of specific surveys bearing on a common sample of householdslproduction units. Within the sample, one will distinguish between the householdslproduction units concerned with the GRN operations of the LIF/PACV and those not concerned. Comparison of evolution of different indicators and cross-analysis based on multi-theme data will make it possible to characterize the evolution of each theme on each site, to determine the overall evolution of the links between poverty reductiodactivity systems dynamics and state of biodiversity, to determine the pertinence, efficacy and reproductibility of the new approach of sustainable local development and to assess the overall impact of the project. Ecosystem state evaluation will take place at mid-term and end-term. Activity systems surveys will take place every year and focus on agriculture production, fishing, salt cultivation, salaried activities and other non-farming activities. These surveys will allow to assess the adaptations and innovations of the activity systems to the context of each production unit. They also make it possible to know exactly, what combinations of activities have been conducted within a household. These surveys will be coupled with consumer surveys that make it possible to know the type and amount of resources taken from the natural environment by the household and used for the different domestic and commercial purposes. The poverty and capacity module will show the link with biodiversity. The approach fits fully in Guinea's National Strategy for Poverty Reduction, an assessment led by the "Observatoire national de lutte contre la pauvretk". The poverty dashboard developed and used in the project includes 5 categories of indicators: Monetary poverty (income, consumption), living standard indicators (access to goods, public services and means of communication), Access to resources assets and production factors (land, credit) to measure vulnerability to risks, social links and poor people participation in decision-making (empowerment) and qualitative indicators to identify local perception of poverty and the criteria selected by local populations. Poverty indicators are calculated from data collected from households and institutions. Data collection instruments include: quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, cartographic data, and administrative data. This will lead to two assessments: a descriptive analysis which highlights the poverty scales and distribution of inequalities, establishes a poverty profile, and through comparison of different CRDs, enhances the factors accounting for poverty. A time analysis which aims at enhancing evolutions on the basis of a comparison ofaggregates at CRD level. ' The internal and external evaluations would include beneficiary assessments, mid-term and end-term evaluations ' A well defined Results framework that is derived from specific objectives, outputs and activities with corresponding indicators ' A participatory M&E strategy for project processes, information requirements, tools and methodologies for data collection, analysis and reporting including a comprehensive M&E plan with clear roles and responsibilities as they relate to indicators tracking with respect to data gathering and reporting ' A Project tracking system based upon agreed joint PACV II and CMBM indicators
The GEF Project will ensure that all stakeholders are taking part in monitoring of project processes according to defined roles and responsibilities based on specific outcome and results indicators. PACV M&E will commission external evaluative studies such as beneficiary assessments to complement the internal monitoring arrangements and will closely collaborate with other Government initiatives in particular the Community-Based Land Management Project.
Outcome Indicators PACV will assess its project management systems and procedures in respect of their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and impact at local community, CRD, prefectoral and central levels. This will be carried out jointly with the CNC and URC through input, process, output and outcome tracking indicators which are geared towards meeting the national biodiversity and MDG goals.
Information Technology The project will develop and maintain an effective and partly decentralized MIS that will assist stakeholders in monitoring project processes and procedures effectively and efficiently. The project design strengthens the abilities ofCRDs to plan, fund, implement and monitor community empowerment and delivery ofservices to the poor. Since most ofthe activities will be taking place at community and CRD levels, it is imperative that M&E activities will take place at that level and that it interface with any other systems planned or implemented there..
The MIS system will operate at four different levels and will include the following sub-systems: Community Level around target sites ' CRD Level ' Regional Level National Level I CNC
45 A Geographic Information System (GIS) based M&E system has been established by OGM and is serving as the basis for the expanded PACV M&E system. The Knowledge Dissemination System supports information and resource sharing and is part ofthe Communication Strategy being implemented under component 2.
46 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
The project’s overall development objective is to promote rational management of Guinea’s coastal biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends, with a particular emphasis on assisting communities in and around identified priority areas to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoods options. The project’s global environmentaz objective is to strengthen the conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea’s Coastal Zone. The project will work with local, national, regional and international partners to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biological resources in Guinea’s coastal zone.
The project’s development and global environmental objectives should be viewed within the context of a longer term effort that: (a) develops and establishes a network ofprotected areas incorporating coastal zone RAMSAR sites of high global importance in support of Government’s biodiversity protection strategy and international commitments; and (b) identifies and implements with communities in the coastal zone selected strategic activities that would strengthen sustainable use of the resources contained within these sites and in buffer zones. This would provide protection to selected sites of global and national importance in the coastal zone.
To achieve its objectives, the project will build on and closely collaborate with the PACV, which would constitute a substantial part ofthe baseline program. Other main associated institutions and initiatives include the Ministry of Fisheries through its National Center for Fisheries Research in Boussoura (Centre ~ut~onul des Sciences Halieutiques - Bousssoura, CNSH-B), the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock through its National Directorate for Forestry and Water (Direction ~ationaZedes Euux et For&, DNEF), the Ministry of Planning, the Guinea Coastal Zone Observatory (Obsewatoire de la Guinde Maritime, OGM), the Ministry of Environment, and international NGOs working on the sub-region on coastal and marine biodiversity issues (PRCM).
Timetable: The project has been jointly prepared with the last year of the first phase of the PACV and the full second phase, Implementation will therefore run from 2006 - 201 1. The first phase of the PACV has been extended to June 30,2007.
Target population: The anticipated target population includes: local communities and resource users, selected government agencies and decision-makers at all levels, local NGOs, and the private sector in the vicinity of protected areas or key habitats of targeted species. Particular emphasis is being placed on the involvement of and benefit sharing with involved and affected local communities. A stakeholder analysis has been conducted for PACV and for the GEF Project to: (i)clearly articulate target populations with relevant project outputs, and (ii)assess current institutional arrangements and their capacity to support the development of the project along with specific areas that require strengthening.
Intervention zone: Selection of initial intervention areas is based on the existing coverage of the PACV. This will avoid delays caused by basic capacity building exercises and.has as advantage that population are already experienced in
47 the process leading to the establishment of a local development plan and the implementation of annual investment programs. The project will not intervene everywhere the PACV has a presence in the coastal zone as this would unnecessarily dilute resources and not yield the hoped for outcome. Instead, the project will only intervene together with the PACV in those CRDs where the populations’ activities directly impact the wetlands and areas of high biodiversity value (the watersheds of the selected WSARsites) in Maritime Guinea. On this basis, the project is expected to intervene alongside the PACV in up to 17 CRDs in the coastal zone by year 5.
The project will follow two phases:
A pilot phase covering 2 CRDs: Kanfarandk (Prkfecture Bokk) and Mankountan (Prkfecture Boffa) and three districts in the urban commune of Boffa (Domiya, Tiya and Marara) - these CRDs are surrounding the identified hotspots where the creation ofcoastal Protected Areas would be supported;
0 An expanded phase covering an additional 15 CRDs in Guinea Maritime. Care will be taken to achieve coherent geographic zones with the GEF-financed Community-Based Land Management Project to maximize synergies.
Project components
The project has five closely inter-linked components. Three of these (components 3, 4, 5) will provide incremental support to three of the four components of the first phase of the PACV (exception is the Component C. Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Rural Roads, which was completed on June 30, ZOOS), thereby adding value and leverage to existing but limited resources. Two other components were added following a sector analysis ofthe coastal zone during preparation, which identified specific threats to sites of global biodiversity importance and proposed mitigation actions. These components do not have an equivalent in the PACV program and go beyond the objectives of the PACV program. The project therefore seeks to address these threats in and around the targeted sites in collaboration with other partners and initiatives (Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture and its research institute CNSH-B, Ministry of Mining and Geology, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, etc.), decentralized government (CRD) and local communities.
Component 1: Protection and Conservation of Coastal RAMSAR Sites (Total US$1.45 million; GEF Total US$O.9 million)
This is the first of the two additional components, which does not have an equivalent in PACV.
48 and marine resource uses (habitat and species) and responsibilities around the site (islands of Tristao) based on agreed participatory community-based site management schemes, enhanced community-based surveillance, protection of nesting and nursery areas, and targeted capacity-building at local level for planning, management and M&E. Lastly, the process will lead to the development ofa replicable toolbox for similar processes in other sites in the coastal zone and elsewhere (e.g., Rio Pongo) and a tracking tool for assessing effectiveness ofICZ management.
Guinea's coastal zone has been identified as one of the West African biodiversity hotspots, however, until now, Guinea is the only country in the sub-region that has not established a coastal protected area to conserve and enhance globally important biodiversity. The government has committed itself to the creation ofa coastal protected area as part of a regional network initiative (PRCM - see Annex 1 and Annex 18). The Government ofGuinea has selected three RAMSAR sites, Tristao and Alcatraz Islands and Rio Pongo on the basis ofthe following criteria to be supported by this project:
high globally important biodiversity value for conservation ofcoastal zone ecosystems high opportunities for transboundary cooperation (in particular with Guinea-Bissau) high potential for stabilizing resource base (high species reproduction potential) important poverty incidence with low socio-economic development and limited national and international action potential for leveraging resources from other partners community-willingness to participate replicability of approach for establishment ofprotected area increasing pressure threatening resource balance.
Therefore, the project, through this component, aims to provide the necessary strategic and operational tools and experiences to establish such protected area through a participatory approach with. concerned communities. This component will use lessons learned from other countries and initiatives in the sub-region to adapt them to the country and site-specific context.
It will have 3 sub-components:
1.1 Establishment of Integrated Conservation Zone: This sub-component aims to establish at least one ICZ. During preparation, two biodiversity priority intervention areas, incorporating three separate wetlands recognized under the RAMSAR Convention, were identified (Annexes 18 and 20). A strategic decision has been taken by the Government to focus its limited human, technical and financial resources on the priority sites TristaolAlcatraz' while building on site assessments and research studies carried out as part of GEF Project preparation, as well as linking these efforts to national activities planned under the sub-regional initiative (PRCM). Piloting the establishment of the TristaolAlcatraz ICZ will bring valuable insights and lessons for the preparation of a potential second coastal ICZ, around the Rio Pongo site. For the second site', the project will support preparatory work needed for the full diagnostic and establishment of a second protected area depending on progress and experiences achieved with the TristaolAlcatraz site.
' The archipelago ofthe TristaoJAlcatraz islands fall under the Sub-prefecture of Kanfarande of the Prefecture ofBoke. The Rio Pongo site falls under the urban community ofBoffa (Prefecture of Boffa).
49 The sub-component will support the following site-specific activities: (i) detailed socio-economic and environmental diagnostic and impact assessment, mapping, ecosystemherrestrial and marine species inventorylo surface and boundary definition, identification ofland tenure issues; (ii) assessment of NRM practices and their socio-economic and environmental impact by local population and identification ofNRM related user conflicts"; (iii) assessment ofcost-implications ofmanagement schemes (initial investment and running costs); (iv) agreement on protected area management instrument to be used and modalities (e.g., community- managed reserve, biosphere, national park.. .); (v) preparation and finalization oflegal framework for its creation; (vi) development ofparticipatory protected area management plans; (vii) final designation ofthe protected area, and (viii) development ofa replicable operational toolbox for community-based PAS.
Key outputs and inputs: In addition to the outputs listed above, the sub-component will provide technical assistance to assess experiences made in the country with conservation sites I PAS and to develop an operational toolbox for additional sites (even outside coastal zone), building on the ones used by the PACV I to support CRDs with the development of local development plans, for a replicable community-based approach. The toolbox will cover all phases from community-based information and sensibilization to participatory demarcation ofproposed sites and planning of integrated local development and protected area management plans including provision for a consultative forum at local level, Management plans will include specific measures to protect threatened habitats and species of global importance, to restore degraded sites with the communities living in and around the protected area boundaries while making provision for sustainable resource uses. The toolbox users would be mainly local and regional authorities (CRDs), local populations, service providers and to a lesser degree central government and CNC, URC and SC. l2
The project would provide support mainly to the CNSH-B and the DNEF as well as other service providers (e.g., OGM) to implement these activities (incremental operating funds, boat and equipment, short-term consulting services, training and study tours).
1.2. Conservation Zone Management: Based on the results of sub-component 1.1., this sub-component aims to support the implementation of the developed ICZ management scheme and provide the CRDs and local communities with the core technical and financial instruments to actually launch and run the IC2 around TristaolAlcatraz. The scope of this sub- component will depend mostly on the management scheme identified under sub-component 1.1.
Key outputs and inputs: The sub-component will enable to cover start-up costs for the first coastallmarine ICZ. Depending on the results of sub-component 1.1., financial support will include small investments
loCollection of site specific environmental, social, and economic data would employ existing information, databases, updated satellite images and rely mainly on recent information gathered during preparation (see Annex 11). l1A major part of this assessment has been completed during project preparation. However, the remoteness of some ofthese villages will require an up-date and actualization ofthe baseline studies. The project seeks to take a holistic approach to biodiversity conversation. The buffer zone of the Tristao protected area would therefore coincide with the watershed ofthe Rio Komponi, which is an integral part of the ecosystem of the protected area. Direct support to communities and CRDs in the larger watershed of the Rio Komponi, creating a sustainable buffer zone around the protected area, would be provided under components 3 and 4.
50 (info~atio~managemen~meetingfacilities and equipment) and operating costs will be provided excluding staff costs.
1.3. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation: This sub-component aims to support and strengthen the existing but limited coastal zone monitoring efforts mostly for the two identified ICZ sites by the Government. Socio-economic and ecological indicators have been developed, tested and validated by target site communities with support from OGM during preparation. These indicators have been fully integrated into PACV’s M&E system and will contribute to Guinea’s monitoring and evaluation efforts towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Data collection will be managed by DNWMinistry of Planning. Project impact monitoring will include information on biodiversity status (key species), pressure on ecosystems (levels of threat), water resources and climate, island effect (levels ofconnectivity), and management effectiveness.
Key oubuts and inputs: Site-specific monitoring will be done using a simplified version of the WBNWVF Tracking Tool, currently not existing in the country. This sub-component will provide limited financial support to develop such a broader ICZ tracking tool.
Baseline studies were carried out in the respective watersheds around the two selected CRD sites around the Tristao and Rio Pongo sites during preparation (Tristao: CRDs of Kanfarande and Mankountan; and Rio Pongo: Urban Community of Boffa). Additional baseline studies on keystone indicators (e.g., marine turtles, lamantins, fish stocks, sharks) are currently carried out by national research institutes (CNSH-B and DNEF) with support from the French IRD and will complement the site-specific coastal and marine impact M&E system13. The project will fund subsequent studies at mid-term and end of project, using the same methodology as the baseline studies to ensure compatibility of results, which will serve not only to evaluate progress towards the project’s objectives and confirm or adjust interventions but also to provide data for national, regional and local coastal and marine research objectives, development and environmental planning and management.
Training from experienced service providers such as OGM to Universities, CRDs and other local, regional and national stakeholders will cover participatory data collection methods, interpretation and implementation ofthe biodiversity monitoring system, dissemination activities for preparing local communities, and methods for accessing and providing information relevant to the monitoring of protected areas. The site-specific information will be fed into the existing geo-referenced database on local ecology, socio-economic dynamics and human activities and their impact on the coastal zone, which is currently maintained by OGM and into the CNC M&E system with support from the GIs expert. Linkages to sub-regional data hosts facilitated by PRCM are anticipated. It is expected that all data will become accessible as part of the GEF Project’s communication and knowledge strategy under component 2.2.
Component 2: Enabling Environment for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Total US$O.9 million; GEF Total US$0.7 million)
This is the second additional component, which does not have an equivalent in PACV.
l3Site-based stakeholder analysis, legal and institutional framework assessment and biodiversity inventory.
51 The weak capacity of institutions at national and regional level to sustainably plan, manage and monitor the area’s natural resources and coastal ecosystems is a barrier to the effective protection of coastal biodiversity in Guinea. In addition, the multitude of line ministries having a stake in coastal management raises the issue of leadership, coordination and cost-effectiveness. Results of the GEF national capacity assessment will be made available by mid-term and used to address critical gaps in the area ofbiodiversity conservation.
The component will have 2 sub-components:
2.1. Institutional Strengthening: Under this sub-component, two sets of activities would be executed: (i)a study to identify options for financial sustainability of coastal protected areas, reviewing national budget for environmental expenditures and proposing funding options including contribution at local, regional and national level. This set of studies will explore different options to ensure financial sustainability for the conservation of coastal biodiversity and its protected areas, including but not limited to the establishment of an environmental trust fund. It will also investigate local level partnerships with financial and development agents for continued implementation ofproductive activities that combine conservation with socio-economic use ofthe ecosystem. The result will provide the Government with options for IC2 financing not necessarily limited to the coastal zone, (ii) training activities in priority areas for coastal zone management mainly for the Ministry of Environment (EWSEA, environmental data management). Financial support will be provided for training, minimal equipment, transportation, and operating funds. The sub-component will be executed by service providers (TA) and falls under the Ministry ofEnvironment.
2.2. Coastal Zone Knowledge and Communication: This sub-component is concerned with the existing knowledge and communication gaps at sub-regional, national, and local level. It therefore aims to increase and strengthen coordination efforts between concerned stakeholders by piggy-backing on existing efforts supported by national, sub-regional and international bodies.
At the sub-regional level the project would support Government’s collaboration efforts with other projects or programs (PRCM, GCLME, Strategic Partnership for sustainable fisheries, GEF projects in Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, etc. that have similar objectives to this project or that may have an impact on Guinea’s coastal zone. This will help Guinea to gain from lessons learned elsewhere and replicate and adapt successful models for coastal zone conservation and management.
52 The GEF Project will further support the establishment of a coastal forum with annual coastal zone management meetings andor regular information exchange workshops on environmentally sustainable management and biodiversity in coastal zones (starting with progresshues from the pilot coastal ICZ) in order to strengthen the knowledge base on the threats, causes and status of the coastal zone and to make this information available to decision-makers.
The GEF Project will provide further support for the strengthening of a multimedia library of coastal documentation, currently hosted and managed by OGM14, which will serve as a repository of data collected from a variety of sources as part of project preparation and implementation. Key information would be placed on the internet as needed and the provision of access to such information for main institutional and non-institutional stakeholders would be fbnded by the project. Support will be provided to the University of Conakry and ME to gain access to the internet as public service access points and equipment to print and copy information. Other donor-fhded projects will be invited to use this internet site as a portal to ensure easier access ofinformation. Information copied onto CDs or DVDs will also be made available.
A detailed communication strategy and action plan has been developed during preparation to raise awareness and disseminate project related information to all stakeholders including local populations (educational materials, radio spots in the local language, etc.), local, regional and national authorities and other stakeholders. Feedback loops will allow for adjustments, identification of lessons learned and development of a replication strategy by mid-term.
The sub-component will fall under the leadership of the Ministry of Planning (National Directorate for Programming and Public Investments, Direction Nationale de la Programation et des Investissements Publics).
Component 3: Local Investment Fund &IF) (Total US$10.23 million; GEF Total US$1.60 million)
The LIF component of the PACV aims to stimulate local development and to empower local populations. It provides therefore the technical and financial means to project beneficiaries to improve livelihoods and exploit natural resources more sustainably by transferring grants directly to CRDs for eligible NRM based micro-projects. The PACV LIF I1 has four windows: (i)Socio-economic infrastructures, (ii)Income- generating activities of rural producer associations, (iii)activities of rural producer associations, and (iv) NRM activities.
l4During preparation, an inventory of all project context related documents, maps, laws and policies including its current location has been funded.
53 For all activities the LIF contributes 80 percent of the costs with communities contributing the remainder in in-kind (15 percent) and cash contributions (5 percent).
The PACV LIF has the following characteristics which will fully apply to the GEF Project:
e participatory identification and selection ofmicro-projects; e transparent management ofresources; e local control of all construction performed under contract; e local responsibility for maintenance; e lack ofother funding for these activities; and 0 clearly identified benefits.
The project does not establish new procedures for its LIF contribution. Instead it will provide additional resources to communities for specific activities with an incremental benefit and not included under the PACV LIF. Procedures will be transparent so that for communities there is only one LIF (details defined in LIF manual).
The project would provide financial resources for the populations in the CRDs covering the watersheds that form an integrated part of the ecological system culminating in the RAMSAR sites. Initially, activities will focus on the Rio Komponi watershed that includes the Tristao site and then be expanded as experience is gained. It will fund incremental activities to enhance the resource base and restore globally important biodiversity identified during project preparation. The supported activities aim to stop and where possible reverse the destruction ofhabitats of local ecological, economical and globally important biodiversity, which is mainly related to the unsustainable practices for artisanal fishery, mining, farming and livestock. All sub- projects under the VIF are executed by beneficiary groups who will champion the activities.
Eligibility criteria for VIF activities have been identified during preparation and will be adapted for each project target coastal site as needed. The project will provide incremental grant resources to targeted CRDs that include at least the watersheds for the selected RAMSAR sites (Tristao, Alcatraz islands for the first site, Rio Pongo for the second) for the planning, implementation and evaluation of micro-projects aiming to conserve and protect biodiversity and to provide alternative livelihood options with reduced impact on the resource base. The activities will initially start in the watershed covering the first site and then gradually include other sites as experience is gained (Rio Pongo watershed would be second intervention site). The project duration is limited as is funding, so much emphasis will be placed on doing it right in a limited geographic area, rather than dispersing activities.
The incremental envelope per CRD is estimated at US$25,000 (base project has an envelope ofUS$50,000). An additional amount of US$lOO,OOO per mum would be available for activities related to improved conservation of the ICZs. This would also include compensation of changes access to these sites through alternative livelihood focused micro-projects. The proposed activities of the project are in line with those proposed in the OP2 guidelines. In fact, the project activities and micro-projects fall into the two categories described below:
Sustainable use activities: Integrating bio-diversity conservation and sustainable use objectives mainly in local development plans; piloting projects providing alternative livelihoods for local and indigenous communities residing in and
54 around the proposed protected area; strengthening capacity building efforts that promote the preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to the sustainable use of biological diversity; piloting selected activities that are country-driven national priorities and which develop and/or test methods and tools, such as rapid biologicallecologicallsocial assessment, geographic information systems.
. Biodiversity protection and conservation activities: Integrated rural development on a sustainable basis, e.g., infiastructure, eco-tourism; natural resources management activities which emphasize integrated resources use with conservation and development; establishing long-term cost recovery mechanisms and financial incentives for sustainable use.
Strengthening, expanding, and consolidating conservation areas; assessing the impact ofnatural disturbances and the compound effect of anthropogenic stress; demonstrating and applying techniques to conserve biodiversity important to agriculture; supporting capacity building efforts that promote the preservation and maintenance of indigenous and local communities’ knowledge, innovation and practices relevant to conservation ofbiological diversity with their prior informed consent and participation.
A preliminary assessment led to the following types of community micro projects eligible for GEF co- financing in PACV I1(window 3) in GEF Project target sites
Investment related micro-proiectslactivities: e Land and Watershed restoration e Promotion of reforestation and use of fuel efficient technologies for activities that currently account for a high demand on mangrove wood (salt making, smoked fish, energy efficient stoves) e Rehabilitation of soils and vegetation (dissemination of seeds andor possibilities for establishing nurseries) e Protection ofriver banks and slopes e Management ofWatersheds e Maintenance andor recovery ofriparian vegetation. e Erosion control activity (reforestation, terracing, drainage canals) e Protection ofmarginal lands against cultivation with annual crops e Mangrove forest management e Lowlands management e Fish management a Conservation ofkeystone species (turtles, manatee, monkeys .. .)
Non-investment related micro-proiectslactivities: e Community-participatory awareness raising and information activities (e.g., introduction of new educational programs for schools) Community workshops on sustainable management of natural resource and resolution of resource conflicts e Promotion ofindigenous knowledge for biodiversity
55 Income-generating micro-proiectslactivities Project support to this PACV I1 LIF fbnding window would provide additional resources for the following types ofsubprojects or micro-projects aiming to promote alternative livelihood strategies oflocal populations that live from unsustainable exploitation ofnatural resources (fisheries, hunting, charcoal making, etc.).: 0 Development of small-scale community-based eco-tourism facilities 0 Development ofsmall-scale harvesting facilities for medicinal plants 0 Production ofartisanal products 0 Use of alternative agricultural technologies, and testing their environmental and economic sustainability and whether they improve income of local population as well as the ecological and economic sustainability ofproduction systems.
GEF cannot finance activities related to, inter alia, introduction of alien species, forest plantations or monoculture, or establishment ofagricultural systems that move communities to marginal lands.
The project will use the experience gained under the EU funded AGIR project (closing date end of 2005) to help guide pilot activities and to ensure that donor supported activities in the same watershed follow a coherent approach, even in areas that cross political boundaries.
Component 4: Support for Local Capacity Building (Total US$7.55 million; GEF Total US$l.O million)
The objective of this PACV component is to rationalize and operationalize the regulatory and institutional environment for local development. The component supports the following activities: (a) strengthen the capacity of CRDs to manage local development programs; (b) sensitizing and training elected local officials and CRD administrative and technical staff in the areas of local development government, planning, and financial management.
56 Incremental GEF grant funding to this component would focus on providing support to targeted CRDs in the coastal zone to develop and manage environmentally sustainable local development programs, with emphasis on biodiversity conservation.
The current local development plans focus mainly only on community-based infrastructures and are reviewed based on limited information. The project will provide additional funding to the Os,change agents and communities in the target watersheds for training and tools to assist them in devising sustainable land management plans that specifically include biodiversity protection and sustainable use. In addition, it will support and encourage community organization and the formation of associations (e.g., artisanal fishery associations). The project will pay particular attention that land management plans of the different communitieslCRDs form a coherent framework based on constraints and threats elsewhere in the watershed and address key environmental project priorities. In addition, it will verify whether proposed activities do not have an adverse impact downstream.
Capacity building activities supported under the project include: Training and organization oflocal project beneficiaries so that they can participate in the (component 1, 2 and 3) process and be conscious of and fully understand the situation with which they live and the consequences ofdifferent actions on the environment and their longer-term livelihoods; Organization of field visits to show the interaction of different activities in the watershed on the natural resource base; Capacity-building ofbeneficiary groups to identify, implement, monitor and evaluate activities under the LIF; Development of technical capacity related to conservation of the environment and sustainable development, in institutions involved in project execution and management; Training of local and regional decision makers (CRDs, Prefectures) and opinion leaders on the benefits of the sustainable use ofnatural resources and techniques for preservation and conservation; and Institutional strengthening of existing structures in order to reorient it towards sustainable environmental management Dissemination oftranslated legal documents to project stakeholders.
The approach will be replicated in the second site by the project and throughout the coastal zone by the PACV once tested, evaluated and refined.
Component 5: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (Total US$3.40 million; GEF Total US$0.8 million)
Qbiective: to emure cost-effective, efficient and streamlined project implementation of the four other components. Target muv: CNC, SC, CTE Kev input: Technical assistance, incremental operating costs and equipment Key outvut: SuccessfM implementation and monitoring & evaluation ofthe project.
The GEF Project would provide incremental funding to support the operational structures ofPACV,
57 5.1. Project Management: Overall management and coordination of the project will be ensured by the Project Coordination Unit (Cellule Nationale de Coordination, CNC) under the Ministry of Planning. The PACV CNC which has shown its strength during the implementation of the PACV Iwill be appropriately strengthened by the project with the addition of (i)an accountant, (ii)a procurement specialist, (iii)a part- time GIS/M&E specialist and (iv) a NRM specialist. The latter will be most likely based at the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) in Bok6 (to be created in 2006) to support implementation on the ground and assist the local team based on the Tristao islands with the process of creating an ICZ. Such a decentralized technical support will also be in line with results of PACV Ievaluation which pointed at the need for more close supervision and local support.
Project implementation will follow a detailed work program for each component. (i)The first component will be implemented by the CNSH-€3 as part of its core activities in collaboration with the DNEF. Both agencies have strong technical capacities and have a long history of working together in the project intervention sites. The project would provide additional equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating funds, to each ofthe two agencies to assist them in executing their responsibilities under the project. (ii)The new Ministry of Environment responsible for the second component sub-component 1 (2.1), lacks technical capacity, operating funds and equipment. The Project will therefore provide targeted training, sufficient operating funds and equipment to the Ministry to enable it to carry out the assigned activities. (iii)The Ministry of Planning has been designated as responsible entity for the second sub-component of component 2 based on its role to coordinate donor interventions, to oversee national, regional and local development initiatives and to host the coastal fonun. (iv) The CNC will oversee implementation ofcomponent 3,4 and 5. In addition to the incremental staff mentioned above, CNC will receive funding for a vehicle and equipment, and incremental operating costs.
5.2. Monitoring and Evaluation: Technical Assistance will also be provided to strengthen PACV’s M&E capacity to use GIS based information and prepare detailed cartographic information on project CRDs. The baseline studies were undertaken in three sites (Urban Community of Boffa, CRDs of Kanfarandt and Mankoutan) and led to the definition of key indicators. Four indicators on fish stock were added to reflect GEF Project priorities and additional indicators for the OP 15 PACV supplement (PGCT) have been proposed. A special emphasis will be put on the development of a replication strategy by mid-term to provide up-scaling during the final phase ofthe PACV.
58 Annex 5: Project Costs GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Local Foreign Total Project Cost By Component andor Activity US $million US $million US $million Protection and conservation of coastal RAMSAR sites 0.55 0.35 0.90 Enabling environment for integrated coastal zone 0.35 0.35 0.70 management Local Investment Fund 1.60 0.00 1.60 Support for Local Capacity Building 0.80 0.20 1.00 Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation 0.60 0.20 0.80
Total Project Costs’ 3.90 1.10 5.00
Government: (in-kind: 0.35 0.20 1.10 salaries and 0.55 facilities) I Rural communities 1.63 1.63 (in-kind and 1 cash) IDA and IFAD I 1 7.00 6.00 1 2.60 15.60 PACV Iand II PRCM I 0.20 I I 0.20 Guinea I GEF 0.90 0.70 I.60 Total 1.45 0.90 10.23 Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
59 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Project oversight and orientation will be the responsibility of a Steering Committee (SC) composed of representatives ofthe implementing agencies and the key stakeholders. This is the same SC that oversees the PACV and has therefore already been established. The SC organizes at least two meetings a year with the Government and the donors participating in the project's financing. The first meeting: (i)reviews the proposed annual work project; (ii)reviews the implementation status and progress toward achievement of project's objectives; (iii)decides on necessary corrective actions relative to project implementation; and (iv) coordinates the various projects in the area of decentralized rural development. The second meeting reviews progress in the agreed annual work program.
The SC's present composition is as follows: e a representative from the Ministry of Interior and Decentralization, who serves as the SC's president; e two representatives from the Ministry ofPlanning and the Ministry ofAgriculture and Livestock, one ofwhom is the SC's vice-president; . 0 one representative each from the Ministry ofFinance, Education, Public Health, Public Works and Fisheries and Aquaculture; 0 three representatives fiom civil society (NGOs and other private institutions); e seven representatives of CRD presidents, one from each ofthe seven administrative regions.
One representative from the Ministry ofEnvironment will be added to the SC.
The overall management and coordination of the GEF Project will be entrusted to the Project Coordinating Unit (CNC) of the PACV, attached to the Ministry of Planning. This is a lightweight structure with most of the day-to-day management of project activities executed by line ministries. Its main focus is thus coordination, liaison, supervision, monitoring, and longer term planning and policy support. In addition, it will assure overall financial management and accounting. It also has direct responsibility for overseeing the operation ofthe LIF. During the first year of GEF Project implementation a regional office (Unite' Re'gionale de Coordination, URC) will be established in the Coastal Zone (Bokt), which will have responsibility for day-to-day management of the LIF. The Project is assisted at the CRD level by Community Development Agents. The URC and Community Development Agents monitor LIF activities and ensure the correct use of LIF funds. They will have no power to reject or change micro-projects proposed by the CRDs, unless they do not conform to the agreed criteria of the FIL and or do not conform to the approved Local Development Plan.
To facilitate the programming, coordination and monitoring of PACV operations, the CNC has established a Management Committee (Comite' technique d'exe'cution) composed of managers ofthe various components, which convenes monthly to review the progress of the project, ensure complementarity and an efficient coordination ofthe activities of the different project components, and consolidate programs, budgets, as well as quarterly and annual progress reports.
The CNC acts as secretariat of the Steering Committee and prepares documents commensurate with its functions. The CNC is in charge of preparing consolidated biannual activity programs and related annual budget proposals. These are based on the annual programs and budgets prepared by the executing agencies of
60 the different project components. The consolidated budgets and programs will be submitted to the Steering Committee for approval. Once approved, they will be submitted to the co-financiers ofthe project.
The PACV CNC, which has shown its strength during the implementation of the PACV, will be appropriately strengthened to assume the additional workload resulting from the Project (accountant, a procurement assistant, a focal point based at the URC in BokC, a focal point in Conakry, a geographer specialized in GIs database management, a safeguards specialist, and a secretary). In addition, PACV will receive funding for two vehicles, office equipment, and incremental operating costs. Except for the focal point in BokC, the additional staff will not be funded by this Project, but will be funded through the related Community-Based Land Management Project.
CNSH-B will implement the first component ofthe project as part ofits core activities (lead agency for Isles Tristao and Alcatraz sites) in collaboration with DNEF (lead agency for Rio Pongo site). Both agencies have strong technical capacities and have a long history ofworking together in the project intervention sites. The project would provide additional equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating funds, to each of the two agencies to assist them in executing their responsibilities under the project. No additional consulting services or contractual staffing is envisaged. Until CNSH-B's fudiciary capacities have been satisfactorily evaluated by the Bank, all fiduciary responsibilities will be handled by the CNC.
It is unclear at the moment what the technical capacity is of ME. A minimal program will therefore be established annually until the results of the capacity assessment carried out by UNDP are known. The Ministry of Environment will not manage any funds directly.
The Ministry of Planning, responsible for the second component (sub 2), has the technical capacity to manage the studies and coordination activities but lacks operating funds and equipment. The project will therefore provide sufficient operating funds and equipment to the Ministry to enable it to carry out the assigned activities. MP will not manage any funds directly.
The CRDs will be responsible for implementation ofthe microprojects qualifylng for LIF financing along the following principles: (i)identification, selection, operation, oversight and maintenance, by and for the benefit of village communities; (ii)contractual implementation ofworks by local artisans, private enterprises, or by the communitieslformally recognized groups themselves; (iii)responsibility for technical supervision and monitoring of micro-project implementation shared by CRDs, territorial administration and deconcentrated sectoral services. The CRD will be assisted by Community Development Agents (one per district). For the purposes ofthe Project, additional Community Development Agents will be added on the Islands of Tristao (2 additional Agents per district).
The CRD Council (Conseil Communautaire) will decide annually on micro-projects to receive funding from among the priority projects proposed to the CRD by the communities, and in general coordinate development initiatives. Through a service provider and in cooperation with the CRD, the PACV will recruit a Community Development Agent to assist the CRD in providing support for the local micro-project process, from a~~~atiunthrough project execution. Helshe will combine technical and facilitation skills and will be a conduit for information between the CRD and the communities, and act as an honest broker and advisor to the communities. The capacity of the communities to manage and finance the ongoing operation and maintenance of the infrastructure established will be strengthened, and the meanslorganizational arrangements to take on the new responsibilities created.
61 The PACV provides incentives to Community Development Agents who are their interlocutors with communities. These field agents will also act as liaison between the service providers, the communities, the CRDs, and the PACV.
The PACV sub-contracts with local organizations to provide technical, administrative, and financial training to CRDs' local elected officials and staff. In addition, local organizations will also organize workshops for elected officials, community leaders, and deconcentrated personnel to discuss decentralization issues as well as the rights and responsibilities ofall stakeholders at the local level.
Financial System and Audit See Annex 7.
Monitoring and Evaluation The objective ofthe monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is to respond to the internal management and supervision needs of all the project's stakeholders, including the executing agencies responsible for implementing the different project components, and CRDs for the micro projects.
PACV's monitoring system is already organized as a network with each executing agency in charge of monitoring its own activities. The M&E unit is in charge of: (i)developing and exploiting a data collection system appropriate to establish the performance indicators of each project component, (ii)compiling and consolidating on a quarterly basis monitoring information including data related to expenditure and disbursements; and (iii)preparing consolidated quarterly implementation reports for the overall project.
Progress reports will be submitted to the Bank twice a year. Each executing agency will be required to submit a biannual progress report for its component to the PCUno later than one month following the end of each semester. The national M&E specialist will incorporate these individual reports into a consolidated progress report for the entire project.
Independent performance evaluations of the Project will be conducted twice: a mid-term review and an evaluation at the end. These evaluations will be conducted jointly by the Government of Guinea and the co- financiers of the project. These reviews will be based in part on the results and recommendations of the evaluations indicated above and will help make adjustments resulting in a more efficient implementation of the project. The reviews will coincide with those ofthe second phase ofthe PACV.
62 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
The Project will use PACV’s existing financial and disbursement arrangements. These have been evaluated during PACV implementation and found to be satisfactory.
Summary of Financial Management Assessment
Implementing Entityhtaffing The existing PACV CNC will be responsible for implementing the Project. Staffing at the CNC already includes: (i)a core management team (including the National Coordinator, Senior Accountant and a Procurement Specialist); and (ii)experts covering M&E and other key aspects of the Project. In addition, a GEF focal point specialized in natural resources, an environmentallsocial safeguard specialist, a GIS specialist, an accountant and an assistant procurement specialist will be added to the CNC to handle the additional responsibilities under the Project. Other specialties, related to civil works and agricultural services will be used on a contractual basis. Reviews over the past three years have shown that the CNC has satisfactorily managed the PACV.
Risk analysislRisk assessments: see Section C.5 of the main text.
Strength and Weaknesses: Strength: the Project will benefit from the satisfactory FM capacity ofthe PACV, Weaknesses: risk ofconfusion oftransactions related to IDA and GEF operations,
Information Systems: The existing computerized FM Systems will be revised and reflected accordingly in the manual of procedures.
Financial Reporting and Monitoring Similar to the PACV, transaction-based disbursement procedures, as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook, will be followed i.e. direct payment, reimbursement, and special commitments.
Annual project financial statements will be required consisting of the following: (i)A Statement of Sources and Uses of funds (by Credit Categoryiby Activity showing IDA and Counterpart Funds separately); (ii)A Statement of Cash Position for Project Funds from all sources; (iii)Statements reconciling the balances on the various bank accounts (including IDA Special Account) to the bank balances shown on the Consolidated Statement of Sources and Uses of funds; (iv) SOE Withdrawal Schedule listing individual withdrawal applications relating to disbursements by the SOE Method, by reference number, date and amount; (v) Notes to the Financial Statements.
Accounts and Annual Audits Detailed procedures have been developed for project accounting for each component. The objective of the detailed procedures is to ensure consistent financial reporting. The underlying systems take into account the specific needs and circumstances for each component including accounting procedures at the Regional and CRD level.
63 Internal accounting controls for the project are set out in detail in the financial procedures of the Project Implementation Manual and are satisfactory for providing reasonable assurances that accounts are properly recorded and resources safeguarded. The accounting system for the implementation units for the components uses updated software. The accounting system has been evaluated over the past years and found to perform satisfactory.
The CRDs (the base accounting unit) will provide quarterly activity reports to the Regions together with quarterly financial reports of the activity of the LIF. The Regions will submit quarterly financial reports with supporting documentation to the CNC. Similarly, the Ministry for Decentralization, in charge of the first component will provide quarterly reports to the CNC. The CNC will subsequently consolidate the financial reports ofthe operational components.
The annual financial statements of the project will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Guinea and with FARAH, which has been accepted by IDA for projects in Guinea. The financial statements will include at least a statement of sources and uses of funds, a statement of reconciliation of the special accounts, a balance sheet and required notes to the financial statements. The audited financial statements will be submitted to IDA no later than six months after the end ofthe fiscal year.
The CNC will maintain project accounts in accordance with International Accounting Standards (WS) to reflect their operations and financial positions and will have all accounts audited in accordance with the IAS, by an external and independent audit firm. Extension of the existing contract of the PACV external auditor to cover the GEF Project will be a condition of effectiveness. Assurances were received at negotiations that the auditor's report, including the Management Letter and a statement as to whether or not GEF funds have been used for their intended purpose, will be submitted to IDA no later than June 30 of each year.
Beneficiaries To ensure proper accountability of funds managed by beneficiaries, technical and financial audits will be carried out on a sample basis. These audits will focus on the technical execution of the works (technical quality and progress), systems in place to ensure appropriate maintenance, and that basic information is available to track the use of the funds (receipts, contracts, comparison ofpriceshids, etc.). Where funds are inappropriately utilized, the Project will cease supporting activities until all funds have been accounted for. In cases where fraud is suspected, local authorities will be notified.
Work programs and budgets As part of the preparation of its annual work program and budget, each agency involved in GEF Project implementation will commit itself to specific performance indicators specifying clear targets to be achieved in the course ofthe year regarding improved access and quality of service delivery. These targets reflect the goals implementing agencies want to achieve during Project implementation. The goals are specified in strategy documents that have already been prepared for the PACV and adapted for the GEF Project. Work programs will be presented to IDA and their approval is a condition ofannual disbursements.
No later than November 30 ofeach year, the CNC will submit to the Steering Committee (SC), with a copy to IDA, the aggregated proposed Annual Work Programs and Financial Report for the Project as a whole and broken down by implementing partner. The report format will detail activities, associated unit costs and
64 an implementation timetable. It will also include monitorable progress indicators for each activity proposed in the work program. The work program and budgets will be reviewed by the NCUprior to submission to IDA for no-objection.
In addition, the CNC will submit semi-annual progress reports to the SC showing budgeted and actual expenditures, source of funds used, statements of progress achieved on the basis of the agreed upon indicators and the (revised) objectives and financial reports for the forthcoming six months.
Disbursements The amounts and percentages to be financed through the GEF grant are detailed in the Table below. The grant will be disbursed over a period of five years, from October 1,2006 till December 3 1, 201 1. The grant closing date has been set at six months after the expected date for completion of project activities (June 30, 201l), to allow for the orderly processing of final disbursement requests and the production of the project's final audit and annual progress reports.
Table: Disbursements
~~ Disbursement Categories Allocated Amount Disbursement percentages (US$) 1. Vehicles and Equipment 400,000 100% offoreign and 80% of local expenditures 2. Civil Works 50,000 100% offoreign and 80% of local expenditures 3. Consultants' Services 1,000,000 100% offoreign and 80% of local expenditures 4. Training and workshops 500,000 100% 5. Matching Grants 1,600,000 100% ofamounts disbursed 6. Operating Costs 300,000 90% 7. Unallocated 1.150.000
Total 5,000,000
The Project will be funded by the GEF grant, beneficiary CRD contributions and Government of Guinea contributions in-kind. The Countq Financing Parameters (CFP) for Guinea are expected to be approved in fiscal year 2006 and 100% funding, exclusive of taxes, is sought for this Project once the CFP has been approved by the Board.
Method of Disbursement The Project will not be ready for report-based disbursements by effectiveness. Thus, at the initial stage, the transaction-based disbursement procedures (as described in the World Bank Disbursement Handbook) will be followed, i.e., direct payment, reimbursements, special commitments and replenishments of the Designated Account.
Where the reports are adequate and produced on a timely basis, and the borrower requests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will be undertaken by the IDA to determine if the project is eligible for this method. The adoption of report-based disbursements by the project will enable it to move away from
65 transaction-based disbursement method to Interim unaudited Financial Reports (IFR) based disbursements to the Project’s Designated Account, based on IFRs.
Use of statements of expenditures (SOEs): Disbursements for all expenditures will be made against full documentation, except for items claimed under the Statement of Expenditures (SOE) procedure. SOEs will be used for payments claimed under contracts for: (a) goods in an amount inferior to US$200,000; (b) consulting firms in an amount inferior to US$lOO,OOO; (c) individual consultants in an amount inferior to US$50,000 as well as small equipment, office supplies and training. Documentation supporting all expenditures claimed against SOEs will be retained by the CNC and made available for review when requested by IDA periodic supervision missions and project external auditors. All disbursements are subject to the conditions of the Development Credit Agreement and the procedures defined in the Disbursement Letter.
Designated account:
The CNC will maintain one Designated Account in US Dollars with respective equivalent in current account in Guinean Francs which will be managed by CNC. Funds will be used to make payments to suppliers in the respective contract currencies.
The Designated Account in US dollars with respective equivalent in local currency current account would be opened by the CNC in a commercial bank on terms and conditions acceptable to IDA. The authorized allocations would be U$550,000 for the Designated Account. The respective allocations will cover about six (6) months of eligible expenditures. The Designated Account will be replenished through the submission of Withdrawal Applications on a monthly basis and will include reconciled bank statements and other documents as required until such time as the borrower may choose to convert to report-based disbursement. The Recipient may also choose to pre-finance project expenditure and seek reimbursement from the Bank as needed.
The Designated Account will be used for all payments inferior to twenty percent ofthe authorized allocation and replenishment applications will be submitted monthly. Further deposits by the Bank into the Designated Account will be made against withdrawal applications supported by appropriate documents.
D. NEXTSTEPS
Action Plan The action plan to be implemented before Credit Egectiveness is tabulated below.
Action Target
1. Extend the contract ofthe existing external auditors to the By Effectiveness new Operation
66 Financial Covenants
A financial management system, including records and accounts will be maintained by the CNC. Financial Statements will be prepared in a format acceptable to IDA, and will be adequate to reflect in accordance with sound accounting practices the operations, resources and expenditures in respect ofthe project.
Supervision Plan
Supervision activities will include: review of quarterly IFRs; review of annual audited financial statements and management letter as well as timely follow up of issues arising; and participation in project supervision missions as appropriate. The Bank FMS in charge will play a key role in monitoring the timely implementation ofthe financial management arrangements.
67 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
A. General
Procurement for the proposed 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 Grant Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described in general below. For each contract to be financed by the GEF Grant, the different procurement methods or consultant selection methods, the need for pre-qualification, estimated costs, prior review requirements, and time frame are agreed between the Borrower 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.
Procurement of Works: Works procured under this project would include small works only. No activities have been identified for which the cost would warrant the application of either ICB or NCB guidelines. Procurement of small works by communities would follow procedures detailed in the Local Investment Fund Manuel.
Procurement of Goods: Goods procured under this project would include: vehicles, boats, motorbikes as well as office equipment, such as computers, photocopiers, office furniture, and field equipment such as uniforms, camping materials, GPS, tools, etc. National Competitive Bidding (NCB) will be used for locally available goods less than US$200,000 and Shopping for locally available goods costing less than US$50,000 per contract. Procurement will be done using the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB and NCB, satisfactory to the Bank. In exceptional cases procurement from IAPSO could be used for vehicles and office equipment.
Procurement ofgoods by communities would follow procedures detailed in the hcalInvestment Manual.
Other Methods of Procurement of Goods and Works. The following table specifies the methods of procurement, other than International or National Competitive Bidding, which may be used for goods and works. The Procurement Plan shall specify the circumstances under which such methods may be used:
I Procurement Method I (a) Shopping (b) Procurement from United Nations agencies
Procurement of non-consulting services: Non-consultant services procured under the project includes a very limited number of study-tours, surveys and surveillance. They will usually be procured by direct contracting,
Selection of Consultants: Incremental CNC staff, technical coordinators or advisors, studies such as follow-up studies, NGO contracts for community support through the participatory process, etc. Consultations also include the organization ofnumerous training modules and workshops.
68 Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than $200,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely of national consultants in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2.7 of the Consultant Guidelines.
Operating Costs: Operating costs will be packaged as feasible and procured either through shopping (where packaging is feasible) or direct purchase (for consumables) to be documented through invoices.
Others: The following table specifies methods ofprocurement, other than Quality and Cost-based Selection, which may be used for consultants’ services. The Procurement Plan shall specify the circumstances under which such methods may be used.
1 Procurement Method I I (a) Selection Based on Consultants’ Qualifications I (b) Least Cost Selection (c) Individual Consultants I (d) Single Source I
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 detailed GEF Project Administrative and Financial Manual, which has been reviewed as part ofpreparation and is satisfactory to the Bank.
Review by the World Bank of Procurement Decisions. Except as the World Bank shall otherwise determine by notice to the Recipient, the following contracts shall be subject to Prior Review by the World Bank: (a) each contract for goods or works estimated to cost the equivalent of$200,000 or more procured on the basis of International Competitive Bidding, Limited International Bidding or National Competitive Bidding, or Direct Contracting; (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO (firms) or US$50,000 (individuals) per contract and all single source selection ofconsultants (firms or individuals). All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review by the World Bank.
B. Assessment of the agency’s capacity to implement procurement
Initially, all procurement activities will be carried out by the CNC. An assessment of the capacity of the CNC to implement procurement actions for the GEF Project was been carried out by Mathieu MCguhC as part of appraisal in May 2006. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the GEF Project and the PACV. The assessment supported the recruitment of a procurement assistant to assist in handling the increased workload fiom the implementation ofthe GEF Project. The only other issue identified was the need to add office space to house the procurement assistant. No further issues were identified.
The overall project risk from procurement is low.
C. Procurement Plan
The Recipient submitted a procurement plan during appraisal for project implementation, which was fmalized during negotiations. This plan provides the basis for the selected procurement methods. It will also be available in the project’s database and in the Bank’s external website. The Procurement Plan will be
69 quarterly updated or as required to reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements in institutional capacity.
D. Frequency of Procurement Supervision
In addition to the prior review supervision to be carried out from Bank offices, the capacity assessment ofthe Implementing Agency has recommended annual supervision missions to carry out post review of procurement actions.
E. Details of the Procurement Arrangements Involving International Competition
1. Goods, Works, and Non Consulting Services
(a) List ofcontract packages to be procured following ICB and direct contracting:
11 2 3 4 151 6 7 8 9
Ref. Contract Estimated Procurement P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments No. (Description) Cost Method Preference byBank Bid- I 1 1 1 (yeslno) 1 (Prior IPost) 1 Opening 1 Date 3 5 four wheel US$236,000 ICB Post No Prior 08130106
(b) ICB contracts estimated to cost above US$200,000 per contract and all direct contracting will be subject to prior review by the Bank.
2. Consulting Services
(a) List ofconsulting assignments with short-list ofinternational firms.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Ref. No. Description of Estimated Selection Review Expected Comments Assignment cost Method by Bank Proposals (Prior I Submission Post) Date 2 Training of 10 US$70,000 QBS Post 09105106 Ministry of Environment staff in Environmental Impact 1 Assessments 3 1 Training of 10 US$54,500 QBS Post 09105106
Environment staff in biodiversity
70 (b) Short lists composed entirely ofnational consultants: Short lists of consultants for services estimated to cost less than US$200,000 equivalent per contract, may be composed entirely ofnational consultants in accordance with the provisions ofparagraph 2.7 ofthe Consultant Guidelines.
71 Annex 9: Economic and Financial Analysis GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Like the PACV, the GEF Project does not lend itself to classic quantitative cost-benefit analysis because on one hand, the expected capacity building benefits have undetermined life expectancies and cannot be quantified in monetary terms, while on the other hand, the demand-driven nature of investments also leaves the specific investments that will be made under the GEF Project undetermined. Not enough is known about investment attitudes of the rural communities to attempt a simulation exercise. However, it is possible to demonstrate in qualitative terms that economic and social returns are likely from the capacity building and the LIF components, A more detailed analysis is presented in Annex 9. The analysis follows recommendations adopted by the GEF on cost-effectiveness analysis (see also Council Document GEFIC.25111 dated April 29,2005).
GEF Council has recommended that for biodiversity projects, quantitative estimates are generally not feasible and reliance must be placed on qualitative estimates. Based on guidelines established by the GEF Council, the Project should be rated as having chosen the most cost-effective solution for Component 1.
In addition, the recently released UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre report,15 provides estimates of the value of mangrove forests from regulating services (shoreline protection, water quality maintenance and climate) and other ecosystem services (fisheries and other marine products, forest products and traditional medicines). Unfortunately, most ofthe data presented in the study draws on data from South Asia and the Caribbean, where higher population and infrastructure densities and tourism play an important role in the valuation of the services function of the mangrove forests. Data, even though not fully applicable do, however, illustrate the relative importance ofmangroves.
Based on the UNElP analysis, the accumulated value of mangrove forest services per square kilometer may range from US$54,000 to US$900,000, depending on location (population densities and services exploited). Other sources estimate sustainable wood production alone from the about 200,000 ha of remaining mangroves forests at 55 cubic meters of fuelwood and poles per ha. The erosion control value ofmangroves is estimated at the lowest end at several thousand dollars per year and per linear kilometer. Based on these data alone, the arrest of the decline in mangrove forest cover and sustainable use of ecosystem resources would therefore likely have substantial benefits, especially in the longer-term.
In addition, the use of rice cultivation techniques adapted to cultivation on the flat lands behind the mangroves has shown great promise for increased yields without having to resort to fertilizers or pesticides. This new technique (new for Guinea, applied in Guinea-Bissau and southern Senegal for generations), has as an added advantage that it greatly reduces the need for shifting cultivations. The GEF Project would support the expansion of this technique to other areas along the coastal zone, depending on the local participatory diagnostic.
Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Capacity Building: The capacity building activities supported by the GEF Project are most likely to generate substantial economic benefits. Decentralization, sustainable resource use planning and human capacity building will improve the economic decision-making process. The promotion
l5UNEP WCMC, Shoreline protection and other ecosystem sewicesfiom mangroves and coral reefs, UNEP-WCMCAJNEP 2006,
72 of sustainable resource use decision-making is also likely to increase the public benefits of the Project. In studies for other countries, returns to human capacity building are significant, especially when there is an adequate enabling environment.
BeneJits and Cost-Eflectiveness of Local Investments: The LIF will generate numerous investments that cannot be precisely predetermined given its demand-driven nature. Consequently, no classic ex-ante cost- benefit analysis can be applied in this case. However, many eligible types of investments are predetermined and are known to generate significant economic benefits. Previous experience suggests that rural communities usually select projects with very high rates of returns and low risks, and manage them much more efficiently than Government or project agencies. Most micro-projects are expected to generate an economic rate of return exceeding 15 percent. As part of the GEF Project's technical audits, the financial benefits and cost-effectiveness ofthe various types of eligible micro-projects will be reviewed. Experience of the PACV and Bank executed projects elsewhere also suggest that communities execute investments on average about 15-45 percent more efficiently than Government agencies.
For those investments where benefits are uncertain an analysis of the fmancial soundness of proposed activities will be undertaken for all investments identified in the Local Development Plan prior to funding the activity, so as to maximize chances ofsustainability.
In addition, the GEF Project is expected to generate external benefits fkom activities that will mostly accrue to other parts ofthe (sub-) watershed, such as improved water quality and water flow through erosion control activities.
73 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Safeguard Policies Triggered by the Project Yes No Environniental Assessment (OPIBPIGP 4.01) [XI [I__ Natural Habitats (OPIBP 4.04) [xi 11 Pest Management (OM €1 [XI Cultural Property (OPN 11.03, being revised as OP 4.1 1) [I [XI Involuntary Resettlement (OPIBP 4.12) [XI [I Indigenous Peoples (OP 4.10) [I [XI Forests (OPIBP 4.36) 1.3 [XI Safety ofDams (OPIBP 4.37) [I [XI Projects in Disputed Areas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* El [XI Projects on International Waterways (OPIBPIGP 7.50) [I [XI
The GEF Project’s overall development objective is to promote rational management of Guinea’s coastal biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends in selected priority areas, with a particular emphasis on assisting communities in and around these priority areas to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoods options.
The GEF Project’s gZobaZ environmental objective is to promote the conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea’s coastal zone in priority areas encompassing several coastal RAMSAR sites. The project will work with local, national, regional and international partners to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biological resources in Guinea’s coastal zone.
The GEF Project’s development and global environmental objectives should be viewed within the context of a longer term effort that: (a) develops and establishes a network ofprotected areas incorporating coastal zone RAMSAR sites of high global importance in support of Government’s biodiversity protection strategy and existing international commitments; and (b) identifies, tests, and implements with communities in the coastal zone selected strategic activities that would strengthen sustainable use of the resources contained within these sites and in buffer zones. This would provide protection to selected sites of global and national importance in the coastal zone.
The performance and impact of the project will be assessed through the following outcome indicators (see also hex3) and are in line with GEF indicators defined for its Biodiversity Strategic Priorities 1 and 2:
* By supporting theproposedproject, the Bank does not intend to prejudice thefinal determination of the parties’ claims on the disputed areas
74 OP4.01 Social and Environmental Impact, OP4.04 on Natural Habitats and OP4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement In spite ofthe expected social and environmental benefits, OP4.01 is triggered because potential minor social and environmental negative impacts were identified as part of the preparation process. Undetermined micro- projects will be carried out with GEF Project support. The individual as well as aggregate impact of these activities will need to be monitored. Large-scale impacts such as major land use change will not be induced by the project. The development of Guinea's coastline and interior is expected whether or not the GEF Project is implemented. The GEF Project will therefore develop a framework for promoting sustainable development, through a sustainable watershed management approach, emphasizing the inter-relatedness and interdependency of the ecosystem. Procedures have been designed to prevent that the GEF Project finances or induces major irreversible impacts.
The project was prepared and will be implemented from a participatory perspective where all stakeholders, in particular the local communities, play a central role. At the planning stage, three key participatory mechanisms were being used to involve communities. These are: (i)a basic assessment to obtain information on environmental and social assets and constraints to help evaluate the sustainability and broader impacts of various development options; (ii)elaboration of local development plans, which define basic development activities; and (iii)the development of a strategic framework and coordination mechanisms to draw together stakeholders and sectoral, local and upstream development plans in a coherent strategic vision.
The community strategy will be a key tool for creating awareness, for consensus building, for generating participation in processes of change and development, for making informed decisions and for resolving conflicts. At the community level, the communication strategy will focus on the needs to ensure access to information for all local stakeholder groups; and to strengthen the ability of all stakeholders to articulate and disseminate information, and make their own informed decisions. This should help communities become full partners in the process of local and development planning. With the help of the PACV, this process has already started and surveys have confirmed that communities feel empowered and are playing an increasingly important role in the development process.
The GEF Project will also support other activities and measures focused on the improvement of the communities' livelihood and emphasize participation ofidentified vulnerable groups, presently not supported by the base program. These focus on more specialized capacity building (income generating skills, leadership and community planning skills with an emphasis on sustainable use of local resources), development ofpriority community services and infrastructure and investment activities not supported by the PACV. The GEF Project includes a significant component focusing on involving local communities in co- management of PASand may also support the promotion of business partnerships to obtain direct concrete benefits from tourism initiatives in the PASand buffer zones, once the first ICZ has been established.
The project is given a Category I3 rating since the project will be designed to provide a framework for environmentally sound planning processes. Extensive public consultation processes considered essential to underpin participatory planning for sustainable management were used as part ofthe preparation process.
These processes have been set out in the Environmental and Social Management Framework, which was disclosed prior to project appraisal. All investments financed by the project will be subject to individual environmental and social assessments in accordance with procedures detailed in the ESMF. The project will
75 also strengthen capacity and processes in Guinea for environmental assessment. Even without the GEF Project, the coming years will see infrastructure and private sector development in certain areas which could lead to the expansion of mining, deforestation, tourism nodes, and in-migration. These trends are already being observed in certain coastal areas. The challenge will be to ensure that the GEF Project induces positive change, and encourages sustainable development.
~aturaZ~abitats - The natural habitat OP is triggered even though the project is expected to have significant positive impact in the securization ofcoastal natural habitat and forest. Still, with the economic development triggered by the project and, some ofthe infrastructure built, there may be localized negative impacts. There are two levels at which the GEF Project seeks to guide decision making processes: capacity building and information. In addition, assessments will be carried periodically to evaluate GEF Project environmental and social impact.
OPlBP 4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement and Land Acquisition Two major factors have led to the triggering of OPlBP 4.12. The first factor is the potential for access restrictions on local communities' livelihoods activities. Communities living in buffer zones are also potentially affected insofar as these multi-resource use areas will be included in local development plans emphasizing sustainable resource use. Yet, the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of rural populations are often the most dependent on renewable natural resources for income generation and risk management strategies. Often, they bear the direct and indirect costs from living in andlor near conservation areas, in terms of loss of access to resources, and damage to or loss of crops, livestock and human life caused by wildlife. Hence, if affected communities do not participate in identifying their resources, designing and agreeing on restrictions to these, and in proposing the mitigation measures, it is unlikely that they will comply with conservation plans. To avoid such a negative effect on the population and avoid unnecessary conflicts, a Resettlement Process Framework was developed. The purpose of the frmework is to describe the process by which potentially affected communities will participate in resource planning and management. The process Framework shows how Local Development Plans will be formulated and adapted with the local population during the design and implementation phases of the project. These plans are instruments that emphasize actions to give communities a voice and that provide them with means to negotiate their position with government authorities. Their design and development provide the opportunity for involvement ofNGOs and other partners in helping to empower local communities through various forms of capacity building. Once developed, these plans should become part of the local development and ICZ management plans. No land acquisition or displacement are planned or will be financed under the GEF Project or baseline programs. Hence no Resettlement Policy Framework was deemed necessary to be prepared.
No Indigenous people or sites known for bearing cultural heritage have been identified. Burial and sacred sites will be excluded fkom Project supported interventions and their location duly documented and recorded in the management plans.
76 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
~~ ~~ ~~ Planned Acutal PCN review September 25,2000 January 29,2004 Initial PID to PIC Initial ISDS to PIC Appraisal June 1,2001 April 24,2006 Negotiations May 4,2006 Board/RVP approval June 22,2006 Planned date of effectiveness October 2,2006 Planned date of mid-term review October 3 1,2009 Planned closing date December 3 1,201 1
Key institutions responsible for preparation of the project: CNSH-B CNC-PACV
Bank staff and consultants who worked on the project included:
Name Title Unit Dirk Prevoo TTWOperations Officer AFTS4 Abdoulaye TourC Sr. Rural Development AFTS4 Specialist Bella Lelouma Diallo Sr. Financial Management AFTFM Specialist Franqois Le Gall Lead Livestock Specialist AFTS3 Gabriele Rechbauer Consultant Josef Toledano Sr. Rural Development PA9ES Specialist Joseph Ellong Language Program Assistant AFTS4 Kadidiatou Bah Team Assistant AFMGN Mathieu MCguhC Procurement Analyst AFTPC Mohamed Arby Ben-Achour Sr. Social Scientist AFTS 1 Racky Dia Camara Team Assistant AFMGN RenCe Desclaux Finance Officer LOAG2 Sameena Dost Sr. Counsel LEGAF Susan Leloup Consultant Suzanne Piriou-Sal1 Sr. Rural Development AFTS3 Specialist Yves PrCvost Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTS4 ZiC Coulibaly Infrastructure Specialist AFTU2
77 Bank. funds expended to date on project preparation: 1. Bank. resources: US$O 2. Trust funds: US$360,000 3. Total: US$360,000
Estimated Approval and Supervision costs: 1, Remaining costs to approval: US$O 2. Estimated annual supervision cost: US$70,000 (BBGEF)
78 Annex 12: Documents in the Project File GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project e Evaluation Enviromementale et Sociale du PGCMB e Cadre de gestion du processus de rkduction des impacts sociaux nkgatifs de lalimitation d’acchs aux domaines classes et aux zones tampon Etudes prkliminaires (Baseline studies) Stratkgie de communication du PGCMB Manuel Systbme de suivi-kvaluation des impacts Inventaire des domkes disponibles sur la GuinCe Maritime Manuel de procbdures administratives, financihres, comptables et de passation des marchks Manuel d’exkcution du FIL
79 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Difference between expected and actual Original Amount in US$ Millions disbursements F’roject ID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm. Rev’d PO65126 2005 GN-Health Sec Supt SIL (FY05) 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.77 2.42 0.00 PO65127 2005 GN-Natl Rural Infrastructure(FY05) 0.00 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.26 8.72 0.00 PO42055 2003 GN-GEF Decentr Rural Elec (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.15 1.93 0.00 PO73378 2003 GN-Multi-Secal AIDS SIL (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.67 2.03 0.00 PO74288 2003 GN-Decentr Rural Electrification (FY03) 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.76 2.60 0.00 PO50046 2002 GN-Education for All APL (FY02) 0.00 70.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.58 24.21 -2.65 PO50732 1999 GN-Village Com Sup Prgm (APL) - Phase 0.00 22.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.35 -1.79 -1.48 1 Total: 0.00 152.30 0.00 2.00 0.00 109.54 40.12 - 4.13
GUINEA STATEMENT OF EC’s Held and Disbursed Portfolio In Millions ofUS Dollars
Committed Disbursed IFC IFC FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Loan Equity Quasi Partic. 1993 SGHI 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total portfolio: 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00
Approvals Pending Commitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic.
Total pending commitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
80 Annex 14: Country at a Glance GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
so LO w- Development diamond. income
PO 81 Lte expectancy I GN GN Average annua Population ('Xj 2.2 18 GNI Gross Labor force (%) 2.1 10 2.1 per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available, lSS8-04) capita nrollment Poverty (%of populationbelo wnafional~vettyline) Manpopulation (%of totalpopulation) 36 37 31 Life expectancyat birth (pars) 46 48 58 Infant mortality(per (000 live bitths) 04 131 79 Child malnutrition (%ofchildrenunder5) 23 44 Access to improvedwatersource Access to an improved water source (%ofpopulation) 51 58 75 Literacy (%of populationage 59 85 81 Gross primaryenrollment (%ofschool-age population) 81 95 94 -Guinea Male 92 132 131 __ Lowincome group Female 71 88 88 I
PS4 2003 2004 Economic ratios'
Trade
Gross nationalsavingslG0P Current account balancelGOP Domestic Capital savings formation
indebtedness
-Guinea
~ Lowincome group
lSs4 2004 Growth of capital and GDP (%) (%of GDP) !6 Agriculture .. 217 24.6 24.9 Industry .. 28.8 36.4 36.7 Manufacturing .. 4.2 4.0 4.0 Services .. 49.5 39.0 38.4 -15
Householdfinal consumptionexpenditure .. 80.9 85.2 85.6 .30 General gov't final consumptionexpenditure .. 8.7 7.5 5.6 Imports of goods and sewices .. 25.9 24.6 25.0 - -GCF -GDP - . 1s84*s4 1ss4-04 Growth of exports and Imports (%) (average annualgrovkh) Agriculture 3.6 4.5 2.9 4.1 15 Industry 2.6 4.7 0.4 2.9 Manufacturing 4.4 4.4 -4.0 2.0 Services 3.4 2.9 15 l.6 Householdfinal consumptionexpenditure 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 O General gov't final consumptionexpenditure -14 4.3 8.8 -0.5 -5 Gross capital formation 22 2.1 -219 -5.1 -Exports --o-inports Imports of goods and services 2.0 2.9 -3 a 0.0 - , Guinea
PRICES and GOVERNMENT FINANCE 1984 1994 2003 2004 lnflatlon (K) Domestic prices 1 (% change) Consumer prices 4.2 12.9 16.6 Implicit GDP deflator 2.6 12.4 16.2 Government finance (% of GDP, includes cumnf grants) Current revenue 10.4 11.1 11.5 99 00 01 M 03 Current budget balance 1.o -2.2 1.1 -GDPdeflator 'O'CPI Overall surplusldeficit -7.2 -5.9 -2.5 I "I
TRADE I984 1994 2003 2004 Export and Import levels (US$ mlll.) (US$ m/llions) Total exports (fob) 610 725 733 1,wo T Bauxite 283 256 301 Alumina 88 144 157 Manufactures 118 96 69 Total imports (cif) 688 578 578 Food 76 89 91 Fuel and energy 69 97 109 Capital goods 72 84 84 Export price index (2000=100j 102 104 99 Import price index (2000-100) 95 97 96 I .Expwts .Imports I Terms of trade (2000=100) 107 107 103
BALANCE of PAYMENTS 1984 2003 2004 1994 Current account balance to GDP (%) (US$ millionsj 1 I Exports of goods and sarvices 546 763 799 810 Imports of goods and sewices 488 875 892 878 Resource balance 58 -112 -92 -68 Net inwme -73 -32 40 Net current transfers -62 5 5 Current account balance -247 -119 -1 03 Financing items (net) 212 120 I00 Changes in net reserves -3 34 -1 3 Memo: Reserves including gold (US$ mi//ions) 164 114 69 Conversion rate (DEC, /ocaVUS$l 24.1 976.6 1,986.0 2,449.8
EXTERNAL DEBT and RESOURCE FLOWS 1994 2003 1984 2004 Cornposltion of 2003 debt (US$ mill.) (US$ mi//ions) Total debt outstanding and disbursed 1,256 3,110 3,457 IBRD 48 0 0 IDA 90 773 1,212 Total debt service 110 97 131 IBRD 9 0 0 IDA 1 8 14 Composition of net resource flows Official grants 60 162 166 Official creditors -7 131 -32 Private creditors 6 -9 0 Foreign direct investment (net inflows) 1 0 79 0 Portfolio equity (net inflows) 0 0 0: 881 World Bank program Commitments 45 48 0 I A- IBRD E - Bilateral Disbursements 20 63 33 B - IDA 0 - Other mltilateal F ~ Private Principal repayments 6 2 7 C-IMF G - Short-tern Net flows 14 61 26 Interest payments 5 6 a Net transfers 10 55 19
Note: This table was produced from the Development Economics LDB database. 8125105
82 Annex 15: Incremental Cost Analysis GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
The global environmental objective of the proposed GEF alternative is to promote the conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea’s coastal zone in selected priority areas encompassing three designated coastal RAMSARsites.
The priority activities of the GEF project are consistent with the country’s CAS, National Environmental Action Plan (Plan National d ’Action Environnemental / PNAE) and National Biodiversity Action Plan (Plan ~ationaldi-lction de la Biodiversitb / PNAB), and focus on the conservation of biodiversity-rich niches located in sites designated as globally significant by RAMSAR. The project will work with local, national, regional and international partners to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biological resources in Guinea’s coastal zone. The GEF project also responds to the following two targets adopted for Oceans, Coasts and Islands at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg 2002: (i)the development and facilitation of the use of diverse approaches and tools, and (ii)the establishment of protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012.
The GEF project thus reflects national, sub regional and international priorities for coastal and marine management as well as for biodiversity conservation. The objectives will be achieved through: (i)the establishment and effective management of one integrated coastal conservation zone (ICZ) around the islands of TristaolAlcatraz, which includes key biodiversity resources specific to the coastal ecosystems of Guinea; (ii)the support for enhancing the enabling environment related to integrated coastal zone management and environmental impact assessment through institutional capacity-building of the newly created Ministry of Environment and associated governmental agencies, an improved legal and regulatory framework and proposed financial mechanism for ICZs; (iii)the implementation of priorities ofthe project’s communication strategy at local and national level; (iv) the financial support to implement local development priorities (identified in development and annual investment plans) related to conservation and sustainable resource uses ofpopulation of 17 CRDs living within and around key biodiversity target sites and associated up-stream watersheds; and (v) targeted capacity-building for local governments in the project’s intervention area to enable local participation in integrated planning, decision-making and management based on improved knowledge on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.
C. Baseline Scenario
The baseline scenario includes a limited number of multi- and bi-lateral donor and government financed activities along the coastal zone, from which very few resources would be heleddirectly towards marine and coastal zone biodiversity and ecosystem management related activities. Although Guinea has designated six WSARsites in the coastal zone, there is no other specific national intervention or program which addresses site-specific threats and biodiversity assets and ecosystem services except Guinea’s participation in the sub-regional PRCM initiative. PRCM aims to support countries primarily exchanging lessons learned with the establishment of setting up and running MPAs in West Africa through targeted training events. Until now, the country has besides increasing poverty rates at urban and rural level (i)no framework or mechanism for coordinating sectoral efforts conducive to sustainable site and overall coastal zone management, (ii)insufficient planning and knowledge capacity of integrated coastal zone management and environmental impact assessment, and (iii)an incoherent and incomplete legislative and institutional
83 framework related to environmental concerns, particular in view of the on-going decentralization process. Hence, under this baseline scenario, continued and steadily growing pressure resulting fiom the various root causes (see section A and Annex 17), will continue to threaten the long term condition of the valuable biodiversity and ecosystems in the coastal zone. The baseline scenario per GEF component can be described as follows:
1. Protection and conservation of coastal RAMSAR sites: In the absence of GEF support, the component related activities of the Government of Guinea would nonetheless pursue some activities to progress slowly with the designation and development of the first national marine protected area around the islands of Tristao mainly with limited and insufficient support from the sub regional PRCM and fragmented bilateral ad-hoc support. WWF is expected to provide limited financial and technical support for species-related research and conservation measures (e.g., manatees, turtles) as well as IRD to continue supporting the CNSH-B with technical assistance to the work program. PRCM funds are expected to become available on the basis of annual work plans and will be used to support basic requirements in the defined process (e.g., covering basic operational costs of local focal point (Point Focal du Rbseau des AMP en Aji-ique de 1'Ouest /MA0on the islands ofTristao)) and to learn from other country's and international NGOs (IUCN, WWF) experiences through participation in sub-regional meetings. Key governmental actors such as CNSH-B, DNEF and to a lesser extent field-based staff from Ministry of Environment would provide limited in-kind support for the first emerging MPA e.g., through participation in the national SC for the MPA and scientific inventories and assessments. Additional support is expected to emerge from a larger sub-regional effort under the sub-regional fishery commission (SFC) supported by a forthcoming program funded by AFD (2007 - 2010, approx. 5 million euros).16
2. Enabling environmentfor integrated coastal zone management: Without the GEF support, the Government of Guinea would provide no direct public sector support to ICZ management and EIA capacity-building efforts. In 2009 (around MTR of the GEF project), results from the then finalized GEFLJNDP supported National Capacity-Self-Assessment Analysis Project are expected to be used to define priority capacity gaps of sectoral stakeholders leading to revised annual work plans of key institutions such as the Ministry of Environment. Under the baseline scenario, PACV would provide limited support national planning functions of the Directorate for Statistics (Direction Nutionale des Statistiques) of the Ministry ofPlanning and the fbture parastatal National Observatory of Guinea (Obsewutoire NationuZ de la Guinke / ONRG) that include the generation, analysis and dissemination of statistical information that would be of interest to decentralization, socio-demographics, environmental management and impact assessment. In addition, technical assistance, funded by the French Cooperation, for at least 2 years (2006 - 2008) will be provided to the newly created Ministry of Environment with expected contributions to overall intersectoral harmonization and coordination efforts.
3. Local Investment Fund: Under the baseline scenario, the LIF component of the PACV will continue to stimulate local development and to give financial means to project stakeholders and beneficiaries to implement specific local priorities (socio-economic infrastructure investments as part of local development plans). Thus, without the GEF alternative, environmental issues and resource-based income-generating activities, except for reforestation which has been added to the eligibility criteria for PACV I,will not be funded.
'6 Due to lack of detailed information at the time of appraisal, this up-coming activity has not been budgeted for in the baseline scenario.
84 4. Support for Local Capacity Building: The baseline scenario of this component aims to rationalize and operationalize the regulatory and institutional environment for local development. The baseline component will continue to support the following activities: (i)strengthen the capacity of CRDs to plan, manage and evaluate local development programs; and (ii)sensitize and train elected local officials and CRD administrative and technical staff in the areas of local development government, planning, and financial management. Without the GEF support, environmental concerns will not be addressed adequately in the community-based development process (diagnostic, development plan, investment plan).
5. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation: The baseline scenario includes administrative support for the coordination unit of the PACV related to the baseline activities mentioned above under components 3 and 4.
-costs Under the project, it is expected that the government of Guinea and interested donors will invest approximately US$17.84 million in activities in the project intervention area over the five year project period. The following table presents the estimated distribution of the costs involved per national entity and internationally supported program per project component.
Table 1, Baseline Scenario Costs (US$ million)
Source / Project / Nature Protection & Enabling Local Support Project Total conservation of environment for Investment for local management, coastal integrated Fund capacity- monitoring and RAMSAR sites coastal zone building evaluation management Government: CNSH-BlMini~tryof Fisheries, DNEFlMinistry ofAgriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Planning (in-kind: salaries and facilities) I I Rural communities (in-kind 1.40 and cash) IDA and IFAD I 7.00 15.60 PACV Iand I1 PRCM I 0.20
Guinea- -._..- ~ Total 1 035 1 0.10 I 8.40 I 6.38 I 2.60 I 17.84* * Total may not add up due to rounding of figures
Benefits Under the baseline, the majority of expenditures will target poverty reduction activities in coastal communities. While the baseline provides minimal support to the identification of issues relevant for sustainable management of the coastal resources, the baseline activities do not specifically provide a viable option for conserving the fragile and critical ecosystems located in the coastal wetlands. The current planned investment of the baseline projects will most likely not ensure the protection of globally significant biodiversity resources at the project target sites. Under the most optimistic conditions and long-term
85 scenario, the baseline may result in the creation of a marine protected area around the TristaolAlcatraz, and may ensure some safeguarding of natural resources and biodiversity assets. However, the provision for a sustainable site-specific management system including monitoring and evaluation is most likely not given under the baseline due to insufficient funding as well as lack of integration into a larger multi-sectoral and multi-donor coordination effort. It is unlikely that in the baseline situation, the decline ofbiodiversity could be reversed and the livelihood of resource-dependent coastal communities enhanced through better resource management.
D. GEF Alternative Scenario
Strategic Approach The objective of the GEF Alternative is to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use of globally important biological resources in coastal areas and assist communities in and around target sites to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoods options. The GEF project design has been developed to ensure maximum mainstreaming ofenvironmental and natural resource management issues into local development through closely interlinked components and implementing structures. The GEF project would build on relevant programs managed by different line ministries (Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Environment, Ministry ofAgriculture, Ministry ofTourism, Ministry ofPlanning etc.) and establish a formal mechanism of collaboration and coordination within the broader context of integrated coastal zone management. To cope with the overall constraints of rural poverty and the multitude of sectors involved in integrated coastal zone management, the project will build significantly on the existing institutional setting, community-driven approach and financial tools at work through the PACV. Using the PACV’s experience in participatory community development, local capacity building activities will be geared towards strengthening local communities’ abilities to identify, develop and implement ecologically and economically sound management practices of marine and coastal resources. The project will also work to strengthen national monitoring and evaluation capacity in coordination with the National Statistic Department of Ministry ofPlanning.
Geographic Scope Guinea has not yet established formally protected areas in its coastal zone, as is the case in neighboring Guinea-Bissau with which the coastal zone shares many characteristics. However, six RAMSAR sites in the coastal zone have been designated in 1993 as wetlands of international importance because of their unique biodiversity. These sites are: Alcatraz Islands, Tristao Islands, Rio Pongo, Blanche Islands, Konkourk and Rio Kapatchez. The GEF Alternative will be implemented within Guinea’s coastal zone (see map in Annex 6) with a particular focus on creating an integrated coastal conservation zone (ICZ) which includes Tristao and Alcatriz Islands, and setting the basis for the future establishment of a second IC2 around the Rio Pongo site. The main decision points for the Government and international partner to select the site Tristao as first ICZ relate to its (i)transboundary location having potential to create a larger transboundary area together with the proposed protected area around the adjacent Cacine river in Guinea- Bissau, (ii)global environmental importance for migratory birds and other species, (iii)relevance as main reproduction site of fish resources, (iv) still relatively intact mangrove forests and ecosystems, (v) relatively intact local resource-based management systems, and (vi) expected increasing threats which need to be addressed now and put under an integrated and participatory management scheme.
The GEF project will build upon and add value to on-going work of nationally and internationally involved institutions and partners. It will draw lessons learned from the first site to support the development of a toolbox for the establishment and impact evaluation ofsuch ICZ by mid-term. This will enable the country to
86 apply and adapt the toolbox in the second site @bo Pongo) as well as provide input for the development of a national strategy for creation and management ofprotected areas.
Technical Composition The total incremental cost of the GEF Alternative amounts to US$5.0 million (see Incremental Cost Matrix below), with investments in the following components:
1. Protection and conservation of coastal RAMSAR sites: Guinea's coastal zone has been identified as one of the West African biodiversity hotspots, however, until now, Guinea is the only country in the sub-region that has not established a coastal protected area to conserve and enhance globally important biodiversity. The government has committed itself to the creation of a marine protected area as part of a regional network initiative (F'RCM). Therefore, the project, through this component, aims to provide the necessary incremental strategic and operational tools and experiences to establish and manage the future ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz and lay the foundation for the designation of a second ICZ (Rio Pongo), through a participatory approach with concerned communities within and in the key watersheds surrounding the target sites. This component will use lessons learned from other countries and initiatives in the sub-region to adapt them to the country and site-specific context.
GEF support under this component and its three sub-components (Integrated Coastal Conservation Zone, Conservation Zone Management, Impact Monitoring and Evaluation) will provide funding for the incremental costs of carrying out site-specific and adapted activities such as detailed stakeholder analysis, participatory demarcation, mapping, provision of legal documents, detailed resource-based and socio- economic baseline data inventories, technical assistance to local stakeholders to incorporate ICZ management principles in planning, management and monitoring processes, development of participatory management plans and annual operating plans, provision of small specialized equipment and office infrastructure and start-up costs for local focal point and communities as needed for management and monitoring and local (fishery) surveillance (e.g., radio, GPS) and development of integrated impact monitoring systems based on existing baseline studies and use of WWFnnrTB tracking tool to measure effective management. In addition, the experienced gained in the first site will lead to the development of a tool-box for testing and adaptation in the second site. The PRCM is fully committed to participate and support the national process through technical assistance and limited direct funding for operating costs based on progress made. It will complement limited Governmental counterpart and other funding (RMCP, AFD).
2. Enabling environmentfor integrated coastal zone management: The GEF project under this component and its two sub-components (Institutional strengthening, Coastal Zone Knowledge and Communication) will provide incremental funding for (i)targeted capacity building measures for EL4 and ICZ management for stakeholders at national level based on annual work plans and capacity gaps as identified during project preparation. In particular the recently created Ministry of Environment needs training to cope adequately with EL4 related to increasing mining and other industrial infrastructure developments in the coastal zone. Key line ministries and agencies involved in ICZ management such as the Ministry ofEnvironment, Ministry of Planning, Ministry ofAgriculture, Livestock, Water and Forestry/DNEF, Ministry ofFisheries and Marine Resources ICNSH-B, Ministry ofTourism) will participate in ICZ management training sessions to reach common understanding of underlying principles and issues in the context of national mandates and functions ofthese sectoral and cross-cutting institutions. The GEF funded activities of this component will be reassessed and adapted if needed by mid-term review based on findings of the GEFluNDP supported NCSA project. Specific support would be further given to review and up-date the policy, legal and financial framework related to ICZs. (ii)GEF incremental funds will
87 also be used to improve and strengthen coordination, communication and awareness related to conservation and protection of coastal and marine biodiversity and environmental assets through implementation of the communication strategy developed during preparation. It includes support for a multi-media documentation center established with French support (currently OGM, future ONRG) and for an improved data sharing system including the creation of national coastal web-page. Additionally, annual meetings on coastal management issues will be carried out aiming to lead to a defined and formalized institutional coastal coordination mechanism by the end ofthe GEF project.
3. Local Investment Fund: GEF support to this PACV component would augment resources available under the LIF window of PACV (US$20,000 annually per CRD) in those selected 17 CRDs in Maritime Guinea around biodiversity target sites and associated up-stream watersheds. The GEF project’s supplemental LIF manual includes a detailed description of the criteria and typology of eligible conservation and sustainable use activities. GEF incremental funds will be used to implement innovative as well as already tested NRM activities, the latter being partly well-documented and pre-defined together with communities under the now closed AGIR and OGM projects and other similar initiatives (such as solar salt extraction, mangrove wood substitute for fish processing etc). GEF funds will thus be truly incremental and complement investments to be addressed by the LIF ofPACV. Overall impact monitoring of the GEF project under component 5 will focus in particular on monitoring and evaluation of these sub-projects and inclusion of results and findings in the replication strategy to up-scale successful activities elsewhere in the coast and country if applicable.
4. Support to Local Capacity Building: The GEF incremental support to this PACV component will focus on supporting the selected 17 CRDs in the coastal zone with training and tools to assist them in devising sustainable and more holistic local development that specifically include biodiversity protection and sustainable use ofnatural resources.
5. Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation: The objective of this GEF increment to the PACV component is to ensure cost-effective, efficient and streamlined project implementation of the five components. The project would provide incremental funding only to the executing agencies responsible for each component according to annual work programs and the results framework. GEF funds under this component will be used to cover incremental costs related to project management and M&E of the established PACV coordination offices at national and regional level (URC Bok@ including cost-sharing ofjoint SC and CT meetings (see Annex 6 for more details).
The concerned national and local entities and international partners involved in the baseline scenario are the primary institutions involved in the implementation of this GEF project except the Ministry of Environment and Ministry ofTourism (both currently not yet represented in PACV’s SC).
Benefits Global benefits: The project would directly and indirectly address identified root causes to the overall and site-specific threats described in Annex 17 and 18. It would in particular contribute to achieve the following main global biodiversity benefits: Establishment of the fEst ICZ around the islands of TristaolAlcatraz thereby ensuring (i)decreased loss and degradation of critical coastal habitats and ecosystems of global importance (RAMSAR site); (ii)strengthened protection for globally significant species, including marine turtle, African
88 manatees, chimpanzees, sharks, sea-going hippopotami, migratory birds and colombus monkeys, complementing similar regional initiatives (e.g., the GEF financed Coastal Zone Management Project in Guinea-Bissau, the Medium Sized Project in The Gambia, the West African Turtle network, etc); and (iii)increasing global network ofcoastaVmarine protected areas. Development of a replicable model (toolbox) for such areas and lessons learned for application in other countries. 9 Potential for larger transboundary protected area with Guinea-Bissau (Cacine I Matanhaz Park).
National and local benefits: The conservation and sustainable use of coastal and marine biodiversity and related ecosystems, and the equitable sharing of local and national benefits from their use are fimdamental to socioeconomic development and poverty alleviationboth locally and nationally. The project will help to: improve the institutional, legal and financial framework for environment and natural resource management in general and coastal and marine biodiversity in particular; reduce the loss and degradation of Guinea’s coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats and thus contributing to maintaining the productivity upon which national and local economies depend; increase stakeholder capacity (government, NGOs, communities and private sector) for participatory biodiversity and natural resource planning and management, building an in-county capacity that will transcend sectoral boundaries; identify and test potential alternative livelihood strategies that promote both improved biodiversity conservatiodsustainable use, and improve the quality oflife at the local level; increase awareness of the importance of biodiversity and natural resource management for local and national economic development and poverty alleviation; test practical models for devolving biodiversity and natural resource planning and management responsibilities to the local level, thus providing valuable lessons for Guinea’s ongoing decentralization process; build a strong constituency for ICZs through partnerships, environmental education at site and national level, and co-management agreements; develop income generating activities and other economic incentives to reduce poverty and to maintain identified co-management schemes in ICZs in the longer term; and develop a toolkit for successful establishment and management ofsecond ICZ site in Guinea around Rio Pongo.
89 Incremental Costs Incremental Expenditures: The total expenditures under the Baseline Scenario are estimated to be US$17.84 million while the total expenditures under the GEF Alternative are estimated to be US$23.55 million. The incremental expenditures under the GEF Alternative are therefore US$5.70 million, of which: GEF: US$5.00 million Government: US$0.47 million Communities:US$O.23 million
The GEF increment ofUS$5.0 million represents 21 percent ofthe total cost ofthe GEF Alternative.
Table 2. Alternative Scenario Costs &JS$ million)
Source I Project I Nature Enabling
integrated coastal zone management Government: CNSH-BIMinistry of Fisheries) DNEFlMinistry I ofAgriculture) Ministry of 0.35 0.20 0.55 1.10 Environment, Ministry of Planning (in-kind: salaries and facilities) Rural communities @-kind 1.63 and cash) IDA and FAD I 6.00 2.60 15.60 PACV Iand I1 PRCM I 0.20 0.20 Guinea GEF___ 0.90 1.00 0.80 5.00 Total * Total may not add up due to rounding of figures
The incremental expenditures of US$5.768 million are partially offset by incremental benefits identified above. These global, national and local benefits would not have been realized in the baseline scenario. The allocation ofthese amounts is summarized below:
Table 3. Incremental Cost Matrix
Component cost Cost Domestic Benefits Global Benefits Category US$m I.Protection and Baseline 0.35 Preparation work for establishment of one Limited imrovement on site- conservation of coastal makeprotected area with limited baseline specific coistal and marine RAMSAR sites data and limited funds for participatory ecosystem containing globally development approach available. significant biodiversity through improved data and knowledge.
90 GEF 1.45 National and local experience and know- istablishment and maintenance Alternative how will be gained through process of If the first ICZ (85,000 ha) establishing one ICZ. Kound TristaolAlcatraz iafeguarding globally Site-specific multisectoral monitoring of irioritized valuable socio-economic environment and coastal )iodiversity and ecosystems. and marine ecosystems established providing data for decision-makers at Effective management various levels. issessment tool used regularly :o guide integrated coastal zone Community participation in identification mnagement leading to of site-specific management scheme gignificant global leading to reduced pressures on resources mvironmental benefits. and potentially increased local income for some stakeholder groups. [mproved conservation of globally significant coastal and marine biodiversity (habitats and species) of 85,000 ha with removal of identified threats, and irnproved resource use practices by participating communities.
Potential for expansion to a kamboundary protected area with Guinea-Bissau (Cache Park).
Multisectoral monitoring of prioritized biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems in and around RAMSAR sites provides data for integrated coastal zone management.
Development of replicable tool-box for establishment of ICZ in other countries.
0.10 Limited data availability and contribution Limited improvement in the to Guinea’s efforts to monitor achievement planning and management of MDG. capacity ofkey national institutions related to coastal and marine biodiversity resources through PRCM’s support for participation in sub- regional meetings.
Data on condition ofprioritized biodiversity and ecosystems in the coastal zone will grow fragmentally. GEF 0.90 Capacity of central decision-makers in Coordinated multisectoral Alternative selected line ministries to carry out knowledge on the condition of planning, management and monitoring of globally prioritized marine and
91 integrated coastal zone including EIA coastal biodiversity and requirements strengthened, ecosystems will become readily accessible to wide range of A multisectoral and functional knowledge stakeholders at all levels. facility accessible to all stakeholders (NOGIONG) . Higher level ofconservation through improved record- A coastal webpage with links to other keeping and communication national and international information hubs streams onpriority ecosystems, in place and maintained by national entity habitats and species translated (NOGIONG). into actions at policy and implementation levels. A clear and consistent regulatory and institutional fiamework for ICZs is defmed. Publication and dissemination of lessons learned with ICZs A mechanism for ensuring financial with other countries. sustainability of ICZs defied.
A coordination framework for CZM established and operational including annual broad-based stakeholder meetings to address and improve knowledge related to coastal zone management issues improve knowledge. I 111. Local Investment A limited number ofinvestments identified Limited restoration ofdegraded Fund in local development plans and annual habitats (mangrove forests) in investment plans in coastal CRDs target coastal zone. reforestation measures. Improved water and sanitation management conditions in globally prioritized marine and coastal biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems.
GEF 10.23 Implementation ofGEF 'eligible Improved basis for sustainable Alternative conservation and NRM micro-projects as management of biodiversity part oflocal development and annual resources and opportunities for investment plans in project intervention alternative income earning area (target 60 percent) will improve the opportunities that would reduce resource base and thereby increase over the pressure onthe ICZs. long-term revenues for local populations; guaranteeing for continued availability of Maintenance ofglobally traditional healthcare and food security. prioritized marine and coastal biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems.
Baseline 6.38 Increased capacity of local authorities to support participatory development of diagnostic and development and investment plans related to specific socio- economic needs.
92 GEF 7.55 Strengthened capacity of local authorities Global environmental benefits Alternative to support development and will occur as a result of implementation oftruly integrated local community-based identification plans including specifics ofconservation ofconservation measures and and sustainable use ofNRM and sustainable use of marine and ecosystems. coastal zones in and around the prioritized biodiversity hotspots and watersheds.
Management and Monitoring and Evaluation GEF 3.40 Support to rural cornunities to Increased geographic coverage Alternative sustainably manage natural resources. of coastal protected areas and expected longer term impact Integration of IC2 management issues into through sustainable sectoral policies through the project's management of target sites will blended approach and cross-sectoral facilitate safeguarding andlor implementation entities at all levels. improvement ofthe condition ofglobally prioritized marine Increased coordination among various and coastal biodiversity and partner programs involved in coastal and ecosystems. marine resource management.
Input in national M&E system assessing the condition ofcoastal ecosystems to guide integrated coastal zone management respecting national socio-economic and environmental interests.
Total
93 Annex 16: Roots-Threats-Analysis GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Detailed information on (i)the coastal ecosystems and (ii)the related sector issues including a threats and root cause analysis is provided below. For site-specific information see Annex 18.
(i)Description of the three interlinked coastal ecosvstems: The coastal plateau ranges in width from 20 to 80 km. It abuts the foothills of the Fouta Djallon and carries most of the region’s road and urban infrastructures. It is covered with highly degraded, laterite, sandy and relatively infertile soils used for slash-and-burn agriculture (e.g., cultivation of rice, groundnut and fonio), and for crops requiring few nutrients (such as oil palms). The saltwater marsh covers nearly 385,000 ha. The marshes can be divided into 3 landscape types: the upper estuarine plains, the oceanfront plains, and the central estuarine plains, and is the site of intensive wood cutting, rice cultivation, salt farming, fishing, fish smoking, etc. It consists of a sedimentary substrate of brackish alluvium on which mangroves have developed. The Guinean mangrove zone is part of the vast mangrove area stretching from Senegal to northern Angola. It represents one quarter of West Africa’s total mangrove wetland and consists essentially of mangrove trees of various strains (e.g., Avicenia germinans, Rhizophoru mangle, hariso~ii or mucronata, Luc~nculariaracemosu, etc.). Some forest stands of Rhizophoru still exist (in the Benty area) and there are significant stands in the Bay of Sangarcah and the area of Kanfarandk). A single-species stand of old Avicenius, unique in Guinea, spans over 1,000 ha on the south side of the Monchon plain. The mangroves ecological function is closely intertwined with that of the upstream (coastal plateau) and downstream (continental sea shelf) ecosystems. Guinea’s mangrove environment consists of an underwater sedimentary substrate covered with salt-tolerant vegetation. It is crisscrossed with numerous watercourses due to the extraordinary volume of the various watersheds feeding it. The large size ofthe continental sea shelf (in terms of its length and gentle slope) explains the exceptional tidal variations (3.5 to 7 meters) and the absence of swell along the coast (which thus allows the mangrove swamps to develop). The mangrove stands presently cover about 280,000 ha. Another 140,000 ha of the saltwater marshes have been used as rice paddies at one time or another, of which 78,000 ha are thought to be still under cultivation, with the rest having been abandoned (due mainly to acidification).
The continental sea shelf is exceptionally large (extending 160 km off the coast where Guinea borders Guinea-Bissau). This formation, which is extremely rich in organic material, contains most of the fisheries resources of Guinea’s EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). It does not experience much deep sea upwelling, and nearly all of its replenishment comes from the nutrient-rich waters of the coastal plateau and mangrove area. Traditional and industrial fishing activities have become increasingly intensive.
Coastal erosion is mainly caused by natural processes. This phenomenon can be correlated with the severity ofwinds and, thus, with the resulting ocean swells and rainfall. During periods ofhigh winds, and therefore of low rainfall and strong swells, the oceanfront mangrove marsh retreats, channels and estuaries silt up, salinity increases and cultivable area shrinks. On the other hand, under conditions of gentle wind, high rain and weak swells, the mangrove advances, soils become less saline and cultivated areas can expand. This irregular inter-annual phenomenon has been termed the “breathing” ofthe mangrove swamp. The coastline is thus in perpetual flux, with transversal variations that, over time, balance each other out along the coastline
94 as a whole. The (geographic) separation into single ecological entities as described above does not sufficiently reflect the complexity and interaction between these entities. Indeed, in terms of their fertility, the three ecosystems are highly interdependent. Sediments and water flows are at the core of these exchanges. The coastal plateau supplies the sediments and organic matter that are the basic mechanisms for renewing the fertility of the two upstream systems. By means of its flushing effect, it also rinses and desalts the estuaries and enriches the marine environment. The saltwater marsh stabilizes the sediment layer (with the help ofthe mangrove trees) and regulates inflow from the ocean. The continental sea shelf, through its tidal effects, helps restore the fertility of the various salt marsh plains and is itself enriched with alluvium when the flushing phenomenon takes place. The interdependence ofthe three coastal ecosystems is all the more evident since they co-exist in a relatively limited and heavily populated area. Any change in one involves consequences for the other two. The disappearance of the mangrove swamp would eventually result in a sharp reduction in fish stocks and in great losses of surface area and fertility in the usable plains of the saltwater marsh.
Two other important sites in terms of habitat conservation are the following: (i)Remnants of mesophilic forests that still have some large specimens of slow growing tree species (e.g., Chlorophora excelsa (Iroko), Terminalia ivorensis (FramirC), Afielia africana (LinguC), etc.). These are found particularly on the island of Benty or in the classified sites of Fortcariah (e.g., the Kameleya forest); (ii)the few dry forests which contain tree species that are becoming increasingly rare (Bombax costatum (or kapok tree), Combretum micranthum (kenkiliba), Cola ac~mi~a~a(cola nut tree, etc.). They are home to a rich and often endangered fauna (e.g., chimpanzees, antelopes and even lions in the northern part ofKanfarandC).
{ii)Threat and Root Causes for the Coastal Zone of Guinea
The main threats relate to the conversion, fiamentation and alteration ofnatural habitats. Growing pressure on the environment coming fiom human-induced activities is either threatening or actively converting, fragmenting andor altering natural habitats all over the country, including biodiversity hotspots of global interest. Hence, in the coastal zone, this is of impact on the condition of remnants of the former Upper Guinean Forests, including the classified Forests, and the 6 designated, currently unprotected, RAMSAR sites. a) Wood Collection The forest area in the coastal zone comprises humid forest, dry forest and woody savannas. Currently, a total of about 112,068 ha of forest, representing mostly the humid and dry forest, have been classified and are distributed over 32 locations. These are located mostly in the "sous-prefectures" of Kindia and Fria. The conditions of these forests have been seriously declining. Destruction or alteration ofremaining unclassified forests, excluding mangroves, while representing mostly woody savannas (about 2,500,000 ha early 199Os), is most intense around the city ofConakry, as a result of its wood fuel demand. In 1989, charcoaling in the prefectures of Dubreka and Forecariah became prohibited but the measure has been more or less ignored. Mangrove forests originally covered 385,000 ha (8 percent) of the coastal zone. Much of this has been altered by cultivation (estimated 140.000 ha) of which half would have been abandoned as a result of acidification, An estimate of the remaining area of true mangroves is about 280,000 ha (late 1990s). Coverage is estimated to be regressing by 4 percent annually. Regarding the exploitation of the mangroves for wood in 1990, the following distribution of uses was estimated: rural households' energy (59 percent), Conakry household energy (21 percent). dryn' g and smoking of fish (24 percent). extraction of salt (36 percent). In particular the pressure on the mangroves resources North and South of Conakry are indirectly impacting local fisheries.
95 b) Cropping Various crops such as fixit trees, oil palms, rice, and vegetable occupy the cultivated area within the coastal zone. Amongst these, rice is the dominant crop. Currently, Guinea's rice demands depend for about 39 percent on export. However, the national agricultural development policy (LDP2 1998) in accordance with Guinea Vision 2010 aims to reduce import levels by increasing national production. In this context the Plan d 'Amknagement des Plaines Rizicoles de Guinke Maritime (PAPR 2001) proposes to increase rice production in the coastal zone by 2005, by expanding the area under rice and by increasing yields per ha. The plan proposed an expansion of irrigated rice cultivation by 19,111 ha within the coastal stretch between Guinea Bissau and Conakry, covering the departments ofBoffa, Bok$ and Dubreka. Among these is the area around Kapatchez, of which 4.542 ha, about 47 percent of its total area, would be irrigated with expected negative impacts on coastal RAMSAR sites.
c) Livestock holding In 1998, the coastal zone involved about 362,000 livestock units. Seasonal transhumant cattle herds moving between the plateaus ofTelimC16, Fria and Bok6 and the plains around Kamsar and Koba dominate livestock holdings in this region. This transhumant herd comprises about 80,000 heads of cattle, owned by about 1,000 livestock holding families. In addition to this purely pastoral type of livestock holding there are also mixed crop-livestock holders, which are mostly located the southern hills of the Fouta in the region of Bok6 and Kindia. Already, competing interests of livestock holding and cropping for land and water are a source of conflict between different types of producers. Hence, indicating the growing demand for land and water resources, the threat ofencroachment ofproduction system on natural habitats is tangible.
d) Harvesting of native plant species No detailed information on the use of native plant species in Guinea and in particular in its coastal zone in these has been found. However, it is clear that the encroachment of the production systems on the valuable natural habitats in the region and the exploitation pressure of valued species, are diminishing relevant medicinal resources which still play a major role in the absence of adequate or insufficiency ofpublic health services.
e) Hunting For populations residing close to valuable natural habitats, containing high biodiversity, hunting provides the majority of the protein intake. Although hunting is formally regulated by law (V97/038/AN), very little is known on the extent of hunting and the compliance with regulations. Poaching seems to be the more common activity. The declines in wild life populations have been noted on an anecdotal base. Regarding freshwater aquatic species -excluding true fish species- poaching of favored larger animals is threatening certain species including crocodiles (Yaran nilotica) and batrachians (~~~no~at~ac~~stokba).
f) Fishing Guinea's rich coastal and inland fish resources have been halved between 1986 and 1992, while more recent numbers estimate that current catch levels represent only one fifth often year ago levels. The contribution of the pressure in the shallower waters closest to the coast on fish, shrimps and mollusks by industrial and traditional fishing is evaluated to reach similar levels. However, industrial vessels are increasingly encroaching upon the zones for traditional fishing, leading not only to destruction of habitats, but also of traditional fishery equipment and increase social conflicts amongst industrial and traditional fishermen. The pressure in the rest of the EEZ is predominantly from industrial fishing, which is dominated by foreigners.
96 The catches in the EEZ are more or less uncontrolled, with boats leaving the area through the open sea. The overexploitation ofthe fish resources also relates to the nature of fishing practices, which result in important losses in reproductive capacity. Guinea does not have the coastal facilities to receive and process industrial amounts of fish catches for export. Thus, industrial fisheries (including illegal fishing vessels) compete directly with dynamic local small-scale (traditional and subsistence) fisheries, in particular as fleets often do not respect the limitation ofthe EEZ and enter highly sensitive breeding and nursery grounds (no-go zones). This “grey gold rush” is facilitated by unprecedented technological developments. The impact of the fishery sector in Guinea’s coastal zone has not only put increasing pressure on the fish resources (species and habitats) but led, through its associated key economic activities such as fish processing (dried and smoked fish) and salt farming, to an alarming rate of mangrove deforestation. The rapid development of these activities and the lack of inter-sectoral planning and coordination have further accelerated the degradation of coastal habitats @e., through reduction of mangrove forests, coastal erosion, and pollution) and their resources. This degradation leads to greater poverty for coastal-dwelling communities which, in turn, give rise to unsustainable forms of fishing, such as harvesting young and undersized fish, dynamite fishing, using monofilament nets and taking sharks and rays for the sole aim of selling their fins. Disputes frequently break out among fishermen and also between interest groups fiom different economic sectors. Guinea as well as it neighboring states is severely under-equipped to face these challenges. National and sub-regional strategies should follow the principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, based on appropriate scientific research, on long-term monitoring of coastal societies and ecosystems and ensure longer-term efforts to harmonize and coordinate sectoral policies and legislation including provision of financial means for their implementation. g) Water pollution Overall lack of sanitation and waste management in the country is a major problem in the coastal zone and in particular in and around the urban centers. In 1997 in Conakry, the system in place was ineffective in the disposal and treatment of excreta and wastewater, household and industrial solid waste and storm water. In rural areas, localized projects exist to promote latrines. Within the coastal zone, the most prominent large- scale industrial activity is bauxite mining in Kamsar, Fria and Gndia. In particular, waste management ofthe first two larger sites, have a downstream impact on coastal natural habitats. Added to this there is also some uncontrolled small-scale mineral mining in the area (mostly gold and diamonds), which pollutes the adjacent waters. Furthermore, larger industrial sized trawlers dump fuel and waste in the sea. h) In Site and Off- Site Land degradation and Water Flow Changes Land degradation and water flow changes through human activities such as road and waterworks, deforestation, cropping and uncontrolled open-pit mineral mining impact the condition of the watersheds involved. Since the coastal zone comprises downstream areas ofnumerous watersheds, it is being impacted by the accumulative effect of human activities within and outside the coastal zone. Uncontrolled changes in sedimentation in the watersheds are likely to affect the condition of all coastal RAPVZSAR sites. i) Legislative and Institutional Framework Legislation and institutional responsibility to maintain and protect the condition of natural resources does exist (Code de Protection et de Mise en Valeur de l’Environne~ent, Code Foncier et Domanial, Code Forestier, Code de Chasse, Code de Pgche, Code de l’Eau, Code Minier). However, lack of leadership, means and ineffectiveness andlor inadequacy of those measures plus insufficient inter-institutional capacity, coordination, collaboration and databank exchange mechanisms are allowing continued unsustainable use of natural resources, threatening the condition ofthe globally valued biodiversity.
97 Root Causes Multiple root causes related to these threats have been identified: a) Poverty The coastal zone represents the least deprived natural region in terms of combined economic and social services indicators in the country. However, with poverty remaining significant, capital to invest in sustainable management of natural resources by local communities is lacking. Furthermore, the diffisiveness, ineffectiveness and partly lack of adequate land and water use regulations and responsible institutions are favoring unsustainable use ofthe natural resources. b) Population Pressure The temtory of the coastal zone (43.730 Km’) comprises a shore line of about 300 to 320 km long and a width varying from 100 to 150 km. Within the national context, the coastal zone, representing about 15 to 18 percent of the national territory and hosting about 40 percent of the estimated 7.3 million population, is definitely exposed to a high burden of environmental exploitation pressure. Between 1963 and 1996, the overall population growth within the coastal zone has been estimated at 292 percent (including Conakry). The coastal zone continues to attract people both from within and outside the country, partly as a result of its economic advantages and the political instability of a number ofneighboring coastal countries. c) Urbanization Three ofthe 10 most important cities of Guinea, in terms ofpopulation size, are located in the Coastal Zone: Conakry, Kamsar and Kindia. The population ofConakry comprises about 16 percent (1.094.075 in 1996) of the total national population and is still rapidly expanding. Population density in the zone ranges from over 400 habitants/ km2 in and around the cities to less than 20 habitantskm2 in malareas. The concentration of people in urban centers leads to excessive pressure on surrounding natural habitats.
Table 1: Coastal zone threats, root causes and project activities.
Poverty and Global Threats Root Causes Project Activities Environment in Coastal Zone The globally valued biodiversity Conversion, - Fast growing population: Through linking with existing of Guinea’s coastal zone fragmentation and 292% between 1963 and relevant initiatives such as PACV, represent a significant portion of alteration of globally and 1996. Concentratedin RMCP and in coordination with the natural resources on which nationally valued urban centers reaching other relevant programs, the GEF in particular the poorest part of biodiversity ofthe densities ofover 400 project aims to contribute to the the residing population heavily remnants ofthe Upper hikm2versus less than 20 preservation of the globally valued depends for income, labor, food, Guinea Forest and 6 h/km2in some rural areas. biodiversity ofthe coastal zone by: water, shelter and health care. RAMSAR sites 7 Supporting the establishment of - Uncontrolled expansion at least one ICZ around a key zone ofunsustainable wood for biodiversity conservation cutting, cropping, (TristaolAlcatraz) while measuring livestock holding, fishing, the socio-economic and ecological hunting and harvesting of impact (component 1) native species. Supporting institutional capacity and inter-sectoral - Lack of waste and collaboration, communication, and sanitation management. data gathering and exchange to facilitate the implementation of - In and off-site land sustainable coastal zone
98 degradation and water management (component 2). flow changes ' Using Local Invesment Fund in project intervention area, - Ineffective legal and priority sites and associated institutional framework watersheds to support activities, and capacity to protect the which preserve biodiversity and condition ofvalued natural enhance sustainable use thereof habitats, including (component 3). biodiversity. . Raise local awareness for the need to preserve their natural - Lack ofinter-sectoral resources and to build capacity to collaboration and databank implement and manage relevant sharing and exchange activities (component 1 and 4). mechanisms. Support management and M&E &the project activities (component 5).
99 Annex 17: Project Intervention Area and Target Sites
This annex presents (i)a map of the project intervention area; (ii)overview ofthe six costal RAMSAR sites; (iii)information related to the national process to create an ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz; and (iv) a detailed description ofthe future ICZ site TristaolAlcatraz to be supported by the GEF project. fi)Intervention area
The following 17 CRDs will be covered by the GEF Project over the five-year implementation period through its components 1, 3 and 4 (all already covered by PACV I).The shaded CRDs indicate the CRDs where the two targeted ICZs are part of.
CRD Population Hommes Femmes Total Benty 9154 9656 18810 Bintimodia 10546 11679 22225 Dabiss 7836 8594 16430 Douprou 7339 7175 14514 Kalia 5746 6257 12003
~ KanfmdC 983 1 10173 20004 Koba (Tatema) 17395 18335 35730 Lisso 3954 3921 7875 Maferinva 11626 12056 23682
Tougnifily 13064 14115 27 179 Tanknk(BokC) 8939 10075 19014 Ouassou 5478 5942 11420 Total 148197 156566 304763
fii)Overview of the six RAMSAR sites along Guinea's Coastal Zone
100 The map below shows the location ofthe six several villages where local population live mainly MSARsites on Guinea’s coastline. fiom traditional and subsistence fishing, rice cultivation, and small-scale horticulture. The area supports nesting birds (including Threskionis aethiopica, Plutalea alba, Lam cirrocephalus and Sterna caspia), while other notable species are thought to breed in the area (e.g., Ardeu goliath, Ciconia episcopw, Scopus umbretta and Haliaaeetus vocifer). Wintering birds include Phoenicopterus ruber roses and Pandion haliaetus. Mammals include the globally threatened manatee (Tricechus senegalensis).
> The above two sites will be treated as one single ICZ to be supported by the GEF project.
The RAMSAR site Alcatraz island (1 ha; 10’38’N 015‘23’W) consists of two small islands surrounded by shallow marine waters and sandy intertidal zones. The islands are not habited. The larger island (Alcatraz island) is rocky, devoid of vegetation and covered by a thick layer of guano, providing nesting habitat for the largest colony (3,000 pairs) of Sula leucogaster in West Africa. The smaller island (Naufrage) is a low sand bank which remains uncovered at high tide, providing P The above site is the secondary future roosting grounds for sterns (including Sterna ICZ area to be supported by the GEF maxima, Chlidonias biger, Sterna caspia, S. project. hiwndo, S. alb@ons, S. sandivicensis). Its surrounding waters support dolphins and marine The lXAMSAR site Blanche island (10 ha; turtles. The site is unusual in West Africa for the 09’26’N 013’46’W) is a testing and laying area for occurrence of coral and rare fish species. It is the green turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea). This site last substantial refuge in Guinea (3,000 pairs) also has, quite unusual for the Guinean coast, a for green turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea), which coral reef supporting some rare species offish. reproduce here. Little is known about the intertidal and submarine habitats although dolphin, The WSAR site Konkourb (90,000 ha; manatee, shark and giant turtle OCCUT. 09’45 ’N 0 13’41 ’W) is another estuarine complex forming part of the KonkourC River Delta, with The WSARsite Tristao island (85,000 ha; extensive intertidal mudsand flats, mangrove lO”55’N 015°00’W) represent an estuarine forests and adjoining marshes, The mangrove complex of extensive mangrove forests and sandy forests provide nesting sites for several rare bird intertidal zones. The RAMSAR site contains species (Ciciona episcopus, Scopus umbretta, Ardea goliath and Haliaeetus vocifer) and are a The RAMSAR site NoKapatchez (20,000 ha; resting ground for several hundred grey pelicans. 10'25'N 014'33'W) represents a complex of Mudflats support large numbers of wintering mangrove forests, intertidal mudlsand flats, and Palearctic shorebirds (Recurvirostra avosetta). freshwater marshes supporting various nesting Mammals include the possibly threatened water birds (two rare species), two species of bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops tmncatus) and the flamingos, and large numbers of wintering globally threatened manatee (Trichechus shorebirds. The site includes marshy coastal plains senegalensis). bordered by a stabilized dune cordon. A small island is important as a high tide roost for shorebirds. Human activities include traditional fishing and subsistence rice cultivation. Intensive rice cultivation occurs in surrounding areas.
102 {iii)Information related to the national Process to create an ICZ around Tristao/Alcatraz
Basic elements considered
The overall strategic goal of the government of Guinea for a more sustainable development ofits fragile and increasingly threatened coastal zone is to establish overtime a network or system of ICZ that covers the diversity of distinguishable ecosystem types including habitats and species and associated localized resource uses and users. Such a representative system ofICZ is intended to: a. maintain biodiversity ofglobal importance; b. maintain ecological processes and systems; c. allow species to evolve and function undisturbed; d. provide a safety margin against human-induced and natural disasters; and e. provide a solid ecological base from which threatened species can recover.
The national approach to establish the first ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz is based on lessons learned from other countries, in particular within West Afkical7, such as: a. most bioregions are under-represented; b. many habitats types are underrepresented; c. most areas are too small to be effective (irrespective oftheir level ofprotection); d. most areas are relatively isolated from each other; e. most areas are not managed or assessed; and that f. these kinds of areas cannot be suitably protected unless supporting activities are undertaken in the upstream parts of the ecosystem (watershed approach). It is crucial to address unsustainable natural resource uses up-stream (e.g., leading to increased water degradation) as it will undermine the positive effect of any activities downstream and pose a high risk that any intervention may not be able to meet its objectives. Functional linkages between the different parts of the ecosystem need to be maintained and the health and productivity of coastal and marine ecosystems and their related biodiversity are to be protected.
P In order to achieve the latter, the GEF project would adopt a watershed approach in which support activities for local populations under its component three (Local Investment Fund) are carried out in the up-stream watersheds (CRDs) that form part of a coherent ecosystem with the two ICZ supported under the project. In addition, the associated GEF Community-Based Sustainable Land Management project will address land and water degradation in additional targeted sub-watersheds thereby contributing to a larger integrated watershed approach.
l7Exchanges oflessons learned are facilitated through Guinea’s participation in the PRCM.
103 Regional context
Several Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) have been established along the coastline by West African states, chiefly by states members of the Subregional Fisheries Commission (SFC I CSRP), which includes the following six countries: Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea- Bissau, Mauritania and Senegal. ‘s These areas make it possible to preserve some of the coast’s key hot spots, which are of crucial importance for the replenishment of fisheries resources and biodiversity as a whole. MPAs also protect fragile habitats such as seagrass beds and mangroves, and are home to human populations whose centuries-old environment-based cultural values have proved to be invaluable for coastal zone management. Finally, MPAs play an essential role in coastal and marine resource renewal, as well as biodiversity conservation at national, regional and global levels and are important to ensuring the future ofhuman coastal cultures.
In recent years, national and local organizations and institutions in West Africa have also been working to promote coastal planning, in particular through the establishment of the Subregional Coastal Planning Network launched by IUCN in 1997. These efforts are premised on the awareness that coastal planning cannot be dissociated from more general management and land- use planning. Several partner institutions have decided to co-ordinate their efforts and fimding in support of the Regional Marine Conservation Program (RMCP). This group comprises the Subregional Fisheries Commission (SFC), the World Conservation Union (TUCN), and the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), The International Foundation for the Banc d’Arguin (FIBA), and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and others. RMCP seeks to support the establishment of an effective network ofmarine protected areas in West Africa, based on the principles of participative management and sustainable development. Its aims are hlly in line with the priority directions adopted by the major international conventions in this field, in particular the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species, the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands, and the Washington Convention on international Trade in endangered species of flora and fauna. In its initial phase (2004-2008), the priority of RMCP is to implement its recommendations through specific actions and to strengthen capacity of its member countries. During the subsequent phases, the MPA network will progress toward becoming part of an integrated coastal zone management perspective, first at national, then at regional level.
P The GEF project needs to be seen as fully embedded in this long-term regional partnership initiative. Benefits are expected to arise through enhanced knowledge sharing and assistance but also through increased access to overall fundraising for national efforts. Bilateral and multilateral agencies as well as private foundations recognize increasingly the importance of a more coordinated and large-scale sub- regional CZM approach as a key component in the battle against poverty and as a way to conserve and use sustainably global biodiversity.
18 Guinea is the only member country which does not yet possess a MPA IICZ.
104 Roadmap for establishment of an ICZ TristaolAlcatraz
A brief historical overview and roadmap allows assessing the country's commitment and partners in the process ofcreating the first IC2around the islands ofTristao and Alcatraz.
a. Early 2002: Guinea participated in a RMCP Workshop in Nouakchott where a sub-regional agreement was reached that the role of MPA as an instrument to manage fish resources and biodiversity need to be strengthened and to be firmly embedded in national policies and strategies. b. As a result, RMCP developed a "Regional Strategy for MPA in West Africa" where promotion of a regional network of MPAs is highlighted to address poverty reduction and favor integrated management. C. Guinea May 2002: During two national stakeholder meetings, the two RAMSAR sites, islands ofTristao and Alcatraz, were proposed as site for the first Guinean MPA. This choice was made based on preliminary data available and criteria developed and validated by key actors such as the Directorate ofNatural Resources, Water and Forestry (DNEF), Directorate of Maritime Fishery (DNPM) with its Scientific Fishery Institute (CNSH-B), the Directorate of Environment (DNE) and the Observatory ofGuinea Maritime (OGM). d. May 10, 2003: The Government of Guinea (through the Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (MAEF) and the Minister of Fishery and Aquaculture) simed the above sub- regional document and indicated its commitment to create at least one MPA in line with other initiatives in the zone and existing strategies such as the Master Plan for Mangroves and the Master Plan for Fish Resources. e. December 2004 - December 2005: With limited financial and technical support from RMCP (FIBA, WWF, IUCN including experts fiom Guinea-Bissau), Guinea launched the process to establish an ICZ around Tristao based on a work program. Key activities included the (i) identification and recruitment of a national as well as local focal point (RAMAO - based on the islands), (ii)two field visits, (iii)establishment of inter-institutional and multi- disciplinary ERMCP (Arrettt No29231 MPAl SGGl 2005) with the following members: Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, Ministry of Hydraulics and Energy, Ministry ofFisheries and Aquaculture, Ministry ofAgriculture, Water and Forestry, Ministry of Land-Use Planning and Decentralization, Ministry of Tourism and Hotel Industry, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Environment (Center for Protected Areas and Center for Coastal and Marine Biodiversity) University of Conakry, local stakeholder associations such as UDESKA etc.). Meetings took place in April and June 2005, (iv) site-specific university research studies related to resource uses and power oftraditional authorities, (v) participation in RMCP meetings, (vi) participation in CZMP and PACV meetings, (vi) workshop to validate West African Conservation Strategy (WWFlWAIvKER), (vii) visit of community- based MPA Bamboung in Senegal by Guinean local focal point RAMAO in November, (viii) site equipment such as motor boat , GPS, digital camera, (ix) meetings with representatives of five villages to inform local population about experiences from Bamboung MPA, (x) Guinea's participation at second RMCP forum in Gambia and EL4 training event f. Next steps in 2006: Creation of four technical committees (zoning; legalhnstitutional; communication; overall processlfunctioning) to assist with establishment of the
105 Tristao ICZ Mobilization of local communities by FP MA0and community facilitators based on identified roadmap ' Availability ofbasic facilities on the islands Additional studies (detailed stakeholder analysis, ecological and socio-economic assessment ofthe islands, solar salt extraction training) u Launch of WBlGEF CZMP and implementation according to results framework and project implementation plan
Stakeholders involved: Local level: Sous-prefecture ofKanfarandk and CRDs ofKanfarandk and Sansalt Prefecture Bok6 Decentralized services ofDNEF, CNSH-B, Ministry of Environment NGO UDESKA supports social and economic development within Kanfarandk (Union pour le Dkveloppement Social et Economique de Kanfarandk) NGO ADESKA supports economic and social development on the islands ofTristao Local Communities (Nalous, Ballantes, .. .) Fishermen associations Women associations (salt producer, smoked-fish traders) Focal Point MA0(Rkseau AMP Afrique de l'Ouest) Agents Villageois ofPACV
Na~ionallevel: CNSHB: Surveys every 2 years coastal zone to get up-date on fishing practices and movements. Focal point and president ofthe RMCP SC since 2000 - plays a leading role in the process ofestablishing an ICZ. ' Ministry ofAgriculture, Water and Forestry I DNEF ' Ministry ofEnvironment (Center for Protected Areas) ' OGM - National Observatory ofGuinea ' International fisheries ' International stakeholders (RMCP members, , ..) ' Private sector
{iv) Detailed description of the future ICZ site TristaolAlcatraz
It needs to be recognized, that there is still a lack of detailed and complete inventories and studies on all (including these two) RAMSAR sites, During preparation, priority basic scientific information has been collected and included a joint DNEFKNSH-B field study. However, the GEF project will support under its first component and in conjunction with other partners a more in-depth collection and analysis ofsite-specific habitats and species.
1. The island ofAlcatraz (10 ha) is ideally located (30 miles from the archipelago of Tristao in the middle of the Ocean) to provide a habitat and nesting area for the largest colonies of Sule Leucogaster (3000 pairs) of West Africa." The bigger island Alcatraz is a laterite rock on the l9 Justina Biai and A. Henriques, Mission report May2003
106 continental sill of the Atlantic, covered by a layer of approximately 3m of guano which has accumulated over a very long period. In the recent past (40-60 years ago) guano was dug in the dry season, which explains why deposits now vary in depth. Nothing is yet scientifically known about the intertidal and submarine habitats although there are dolphin, manatee, shark and giant turtle. The smaller island (Naufrage) is a resting place and nesting site for thousands of terns (black tern Chlidonias nigra, royal, Caspian, common, sandwich and least tern). The dominant resource use around the site is clandestine industrial fishing by foreign fishing vessels from Ghana, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Senegal, and Gambia. Guano exploitation on Alcatraz clearly had a considerable adverse impact on the brown booby breeding population. In the 30s a team of about 25 people maintained an annual presence there between December and May. The bird population today seems to have completely re-established itself, thus providing a good example of how a bird species can recover once human activity on site has ceased. The shipping roads to the Kamsar harbor pass a few dozen kilometers to the south ofthe two islands. There is therefore a risk ofoil pollution when vessels discharge ballast. A visit by boat (without landing) is possible provided that the vessel and crew are suitably qualified for sea trips,
2. The mangrove-rich archipelago of Tristao (85.000 ha) are located in the delta of the Kogon river, limited by the Kompony river to the east, by the Atlantic Ocean to the south and west and by Cacine river to the north at the border with Guinea Bissau. The islands possess a rich hydrographic environment (1 5 watersheds) which facilitates island water-based transportation and supports a rich biodiversity. There are two seasons, a rainy season from May to November and a dry season from December to April. The annual rainfall is up to 2000 mm.
The archipelago is composed of four islands: The biggest island Kattarek or Katrak (with three districts Kadigne, Katfoura and Kasmack), the island Kapkin or Katchembe, the smaller island Fori Souri (district Kapkin) and the island Gnene Souri hot habited).
Due to their geographic location, these islands represent a strategic and economic pole for Guinea with intensive trade links between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau.
Administration The Tristao islands fall under the “prefecture” of BokC and are part of two CRDs: CRD SansalC (6395 residents) and CRD KanfarandC (19829 residents). The sous-prefecture of Kanfarandt is the most expanded sous-prefecture (1 160 km2) and shares its districts between the continent and islands. Terrestrial access to the sub-prefecture is possible (i)via the bridge over the Rio Nunez but only during the dry season, or (ii)more difficult via boat as only a few transport boats link the harbor ofKamsar with the archipelago.
Population on Tristao The earliest documents mention the discovery of local populations, Nulous, in the XV and XVIIth centuries. Many of the villages have been established by immigrants, Ballantas, coming from Guinea-Bissau, a trend which increased during the war in Guinea Bissau (1954 - 1963). Today, the Fori Souri island is exclusively inhabited by Ballantas. The same ethnical groups live on both sides of the borders (Guinea and Guinea-Bissau). Due to their remote location, Christian missionaries did not target the islands and Islam reached the islands during the second half ofthe 20th century. Although each ethical group strongly practices its traditional language and culture,
107 the SOUSSOU~Slanguage "soussou" is spoken and understood now by all groups. Tristao is a colonial name2' and not used by local habitants, In local language the islands are called Katrak or Kattarek. "Ntrak" is used to designate a sacred forest around a little lake where the spirits live.
Population density appears to be relatively steady (%SO), probably due its remote location and difficult access. However, as the islands contain today the largest traditional port of Guinea's coast (in terms of number ofboats), the islands have seen a heavy increase in residing fishermen in the 10 other fishermen camps on the three islands (e.g., Katchek is the largest traditional fishery camp for the entire coastal zone). This leads obviously to a strong pressure on the site, including increasing migration of seasonal fishermen (e.g., from Sierra Leon).
Ecological significance and species of global imDortance The area is mainly covered with mangroves, especially the islands ofKatarak and Kapken which are crossed by old barrier beaches settled with villages. The coastal line is filled with sand banks and mangroves. The mangroves cover a substantial surface (~hizophora~arrisoni and racemosa), Avicennia and Lan~cularia).The inner land consists ofmultiple sacred forests with old trees, agricultural land and fruit trees. Fresh water and salt water are mixing during rainy season, enriching sea with nutriments retained in mangrove forests. Major fish stocks present are Mugilidae, Clupeides, Ethmalosa Jimbriat, Sardinella sp, carpe rouge Lutjanus spp, Sphyraena spp, Epinephelus sp, Arides, Pseudotolithus spp. The sites contain further monkeys, aula codes, sea turtles, African manatee (both of them on IUCN red list as threatened species), and rare species such as H~popotamusamphibious, crocodiles, dolphins and whales. The RAMSAR classification was mainly due to these islands importance for bird life and bird migration. The islands of Tristao serve birds as food provider, zone for coupling, nesting, and recovery, Birds represented are: Pelican gris (Pelecanus onocrotalus), Courlis corlieu (~umenius phaeopus), Heron goliath (Ardea goliath) Heron cendre (Ardea cinerea) Grande Aigrette (Ardea alba), Aigrette diforme, Alcedo spp, Gypohierax angolensis, Pandion haliaetus, Sterna sandvicensis. In addition, there is presence on Khoni Benki of a nesting colony ofFlatalea alba, ~ries~ornisaethiopica, Sterna caspia, and gray-headed gull Larus cirrocephalus and presence of possible nesting presence of Ciconia episcopus, Scopus umbretta, Haliaetus vocijer, Ardea goliath, and Balearica pavonica. The site appears to be a wintering site for Pandion haliae~us and Phoenicopterus rubber and there is presence of Trichechus senegalensis in the tidal creeks. Other bird species present includes the African spoonbill, sacred ibis, Caspian tern, gray-headed gull, white-necked stork, hammerhead stork, fish eagle, goliath heron, crowned crane, ruff, osprey, lesser and greater flamingo.
The mangrove ecosystem on the islands appears to be still relatively well preserved and there is limited use of mangrove wood for firewood and overall limited degradation probably due to its isolated location, limited access and the traditional conservation practices ofthe Nalous.
The future transboundan, Drotected area together with Guinea-Bissau would increase substantially the areas under a more sustainable co-management scheme and potentially include Khoni Bed, part ofthe Tristao Islands, and part of the mainland around Bansalt. This would provide for a larger protection of nesting grounds, hippopotamus and large mammals on the Guinean side. Discussions with the authorities in Guinea-Bissau have so far touched on future
20 Name has been given to honor a portugese sailor and slave trader called Nino Tristao.
108 joint efforts related to fishery surveillance, joint mapping and monitoring and evaluation efforts and will be concretized as part ofthe RMCP meetings.
Resource uses and users
The local communities use a multi-activity-based natural resource exploitation and management system, differing slightly fi-om village to village (see below prioritization) but mainly based on rice cultivation, traditional fishery, oil palm extraction, salt farming, and hunting. They distinguish between production zones (palm trees), extraction zones (mangroves, savannahs) and protected zones (sacred forests), These activities are linked to associated activities such as (i) trading network for smoked fish towards bordering countries and inland, (ii)exports of salt-dried fish to Senegal, Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, (iii)exports of sharks to international markets, (iv) trade ofpalm oil to coastal towns such as Bok6 and Kamsar, and (v) imports ofother goods. Katchek: 1. Agriculture, 2. Fishing, 3. Trade, 4. Livestock, 5. Oil palm extraction Kapkin: 1. Agriculture, 2. Fishing, 3. Oil palm extraction, 4. Livestock, 5. Salt farming Fori Souri: 1. Agriculture, 2. Livestock, 3. Salt farming, 4. Fishing.
The Nalous live mainly fi-om agriculture (extensive rice-growing), forest products (mainly palm products), collection of mollusks, shellfish and subsistence fishing. In the surroundingslcatchrnents area, there is limited livestock holding (Katarak). In the 1950s immigrants fi-om Kamsar, Boffa, and Conakry but also fi-om the sub-region moved into the site and thus changed socio-economic and environmental dynamics. The site has become nowadays a prime area for small-scale traditional fisheries with multiple fisher camps established on the islands. The biggest one, Katcheck, illustrates the level of specialization and subsequent inter- dependency for a given resource. Local communities show stratification among fishermen, fish processors, and wood sellers for smokingldrying and salt farming. Such intensified resource use is threatening natural regeneration and recovery processes (mainly of fish stocks) but also traditional lifestyles in particular for the Nalous. It has become a basis of many conflicts over resources between native communities and immigrants. However, it should be noted that in contrast to other sites, the mangrove forests on the islands of Tristao are, probably due their remote location, currently untouched by outside wood cutters.
Site specific threats and impact ofunsustainable use ' Fishing techniques (traditional and industrial) in particular for red-listed species such as manatee and sea turtles = Destruction ofmangroves through wood cutting Degradation ofbeach thereby impacting nesting grounds ' Poaching, hunting including stealing eggs from nesting colonies and capture ofmigratory birds. These threats lead to increasing conflicts between subsistence fishing and traditional fisheries; between traditional fisheries and industrial fisheries and between farmers and those exploiting the mangrove forest (principally for fish processing and salt fanning).
The traditional conservation practices: The Nalous have a secular tradition of sustainable management and a profound knowledge of their environment as they depend exclusively on these natural resources for their sunrival, and
109 accordingly are highly sensitive to their degradation and motivated to preserve them. Their practices include: Protection ofsacred forests (e.g., Kapkin) Interdiction to traverse the river during the night Interdiction to fish in specific watersheds during rainy season and reproduction period Interdictionto cut large and old trees and mangrove forests in certain areas Interdiction to destroy and degrade habitats for medicinal plants H . Interdiction of selective fishery and use of specific products to satisfy external market
Summary of key issues related to the CCZ around Tristao I Alcatraz
During preparation of the GEF project, the following barriers and constraints as well as strengths to establish an ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz have been flagged and are addressed through the GEF project’s design:
Appropriate management instnunent for first ICZ. Each “protected area” operates at a local level, where the participation and support of local communities and stakeholders is absolutely imperative. Impacts (both positive and negative) are more immediately felt at this level where people are often asked to make significant investments of time and space. The success or failure of any type of “protected area” depends on adapting management approaches to their unique socioeconomic and natural environment to resolve problems that they themselves have identified. However, individual protected areas must operate within a context defined by national policy and legislation. It needs a flexible yet comprehensive management plan with zoning, mapping and surveillance plans. Clearly, the sustainability of conservation measures depends both on the effectiveness of on-site management and on the support provided by national level guidelines, policies and legislation. Three main options were assessed: (i)a community- management reserve with zoning for different resource uses (e.g., zone for traditional fishery and nursery; zone for industrial fishery); (ii)a biosphere reserve; and (iii)a national park. Preparatory discussions with local populations and stakeholders involved including a review of similar resource use schemes in the country and in the sub-region resulted in a clear decision to apply a co-management scheme for the Tristao ICZ. The GEF project will support a highly consultative and participatory process through its component 1 and not apply pre-depned options to the second site around Rio Pongo. The replicable toolkit to establish an ICZ which will be made available by MTR will provide for a range of tested options and rely on experiences with eo-management schemes for forest management in Guinea. The GEF project will also assist with a review and if needed up-date of the policy and legal framework related to ICZ.
H Insufficient scientific knowledge of ecosystem processes, habitats and species: The inadequacy of material, human, and financial resources devoted to research has resulted in a highly superficial and limited understanding of these areas. In addition, the mobility of many animal species (migrations, natural displacement or pollution-induced displacement) contributes to the problems of surveying animal populations. The GEF project preparation phase supported an integrated basehe study of the areas surrounding the two ICZ sites as well as a brief survey related to the socio-economic and
110 ecological situation on the islands. During the early stage of project implementation, additional studies will complement existing and on-going research activities and support will be providedfor a site-specijic project impact M&E system (component 1).
Insufficient human. technical and financial capacities: As part of the preparation process, the GEF project has tailored its scope to address existing capacity gaps and needs at local and national level in view of limited funds and timeflame: The Project focus now on the establishment of only one ICZ (Tristao) and strengthens national and local capacities through its components 2 and 4 in targeted areas (EIA, ICZ management and participatory processes). The GEF project willfurther support the development of a mechanism to ensure~nancialsustainability for management of the ICZ (component 2).
Strengthen existing monitoring and evaluation and surveillance svstems (industrial fishery). There is an increasingly pronounced presence of industrial fishing near the Tristao site. Negative impacts stem from the techniques used by industrial fishing resulting in the indiscriminate capture of all types and sizes of fish and conflicts with traditional fishing (impact on resource availability, collisions between boats leading to loss of lives and equipment) With their great financial and technical capabilities, and the emphasis they place on financial compensation, those involved in industrial fishing exert strong lobbying pressures on the national authorities to obtain fishing licenses. The traditional fisheries, as well as the processing and marketing of its products, constitutes the major activity of the immigrant population established in the Tristao Islands. These migratory movements are buttressed by the fact that there is a lack of clear property tenure rules, complicated by increased migration &om conflict areas in neighboring countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, and Ivory Coast). Because of competition from industrial fisheries, traditional fisheries have tended to turn toward the subsistence fishing areas, which are also the areas where the fish stock reproduces and grows. The magnitude and growth of this traditional fishery activity has resulted in conflicts with the native populations. In particular, they regard the practice as failing to preserve the environment, which is contrary to their traditions, and as leading to a loss of power over their own economic and socio-cultural space, ultimately threatening their survival. The GEF project will support existing local and national monitoring eflorts (mainly through the scientific research institute CNSH-B under the Ministry of Fishery and Aquaculture and the future Observatory of National Guinea and the Directorate of ~tatistics~othunder Ministry of Planning), provide small equipment and training and expand existing data bases and information through its component 1 and 2.
Facilitating the establishment of a trans-boundarv conservation area. There is a neighboring site ofmajor ecological importance (Mata de Cantanhez) in Guinea-Bissau, which is also the subject of a WBIGEF CZMP project. This area could be tied into the IC2 for the Tristao Islands. Following the formal establishment of the ICZ Tristao, Guinea-Bissau has expressed its commitment to launch the process to create such adjacent protected area on the other side of the bordering Cacine river which separates Tristao from the future Catanhez area. The project aims to support a partnership agreement between Guinea- Bissau and Guinea through its components I, 2, 3 and 4 to achieve economies of scale in respect of joint management and monitoring as well as
111 sharing of lessons learned. This is facilitate through the overall RMCP initiative where both countries actively participate and close coordination with the on-going KWEF CzlMP in Guinea-Bissau.
Integrating ICZ in overall coastal zone planning process. It is particularly important that ICZ be reflected in national and regional approaches to fisheries management, i.e., in negotiations on fishing agreements. ICZ will only survive if the socioeconomic climate can provide a long-term guarantee of sustainable development in the region. It is therefore crucial to support public and private policies that promote sustainable development. While the GEFproject is expected to contribute indirectly to this aim, other sub-regional initiatives such as RMCP and the AFD funded MPA-Network Program are expected to support international negotiations.
112 Annex 18: STAP Roster Review GUINEA: Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project
Overview:
The reviewer undertook a preliminary assessment of an earlier draft Project Concept Document and raised a number of issues with the Project Team that were intended to help strengthen the PCD and assist in the achievement of the stated objectives. In the main these have been addressed in the revised PCD.
However, there remains one critical issue that needs to be addressed more fully in the PCD. This concerns sustainability of the RAMSAR sites given the poor standards of soil and water management in the catchments in the coastal plateau. This is discussed in the section on Scientific and Technical Soundness ofthe Project:
STAP based on the GEF Evaluation criteria.
Key issues
1, Scientific and technical soundness of the project
Given the early stage of development of baseline information on the coastal systems it is to be expected that there may not be sufficient ecological and technical information available to give the project as sound a scientific base as would be desirable. Some important questions remain that will affect the implementation and possible success ofproject activities intended to conserve biodiversity. One example is whether the two RAMSAR sites can be conserved if major issues affecting hydrology and sediment budgets upstream from the coast are not effectively dealt with under the Programme d’Appui aux Communautts Villageoises (PAVC) and other projects that form the broader coastal management framework for the project.
The project documentation presents a comprehensive overview of the ecological, socio- economic and governance issues affecting the conservation of biodiversity associated with the coastal and marine ecosystems in Guinea, including six nominated RAMSAR sites. The PCD acknowledges the lack of detailed scientific information on the effects of human development pressures on the ecological linkages between the coastal plateau, marine wetlands and continental shelf components of the coastal zone. A number of specific issues are identified in the PCD that threaten equilibrium of the three main components of the coastal ecosystem (coastal plateau, salt water marshes and continental shelf), biological diversity and sustainable use of the coastal and marine areas and resources. One of the prominent issues is the poor land and water management in the coastal plateau with its dense drainage network. Based on experience elsewhere, this would make the RAMSAR sites in the estuaries downstream vulnerable to degradation unless significant improvements are made in the management of human activities in the watersheds upstream.
This issue was raised by the reviewer and the Project Team incorporated the following sentence in response “Given the importance ofthe inter-linkages between the different ecological zones in
113 the coastal area through a dense hydrological network, greatly improved management of the three main ecological zones is needed if the health and productivity of coastal and marine ecosystems and their related biodiversity are to be maintained." (page 12)
The PCD goes on to give emphasis to the use of an ecosystems approach to the improvement of the management of the priority RAMSAR sites at TristaolAlcatraz Islands and Rio Pongo, both of which are estuarine complexes. However, the PCD does not really develop a strong management relationship between the WSARsites and the catchments upstream. By concentrating efforts on the protected areas without a corresponding and effective effort within the broader catchment system, any short-term progress in local management within and immediately surrounding the 2 target sites would be very vulnerable to loss of sustainability resulting from a breakdown in coastal ecosystem functions caused by poor management upstream.
The project team clearly recognizes that the challenges of developing a robust program for sustainable coastal planning and management for the whole of the coastal zone in Guinea may have to be left to other initiatives. However, the reviewer believes that the project budget of $20 mullion would be sufficient to develop a project model that integrates improvements in land and water use management in the watersheds linked to the estuaries where the two target RAMSAR sites are located. This could well be more strongly integrated with the efforts within the PACV program and would provide a much more robust fkamework for sustainable management and transfer to other areas in the West African coast. This should be explored as it would strengthen the scientific and technical features ofthe project design.
The project design features a range of appropriate and integrated supporting measures that could be extended to the catchments associated with the two estuarine RAMSAR sites. These include: the development of alternative livelihoods, the village development fund, measures to strengthen the capacity of stakeholders to help plan for and implement sustainable use of the coastal ecosystems. This would provide important economic and social development tools to support the emphasis within the project on environmental linkages between the CCAs and the broader coastal ecosystem that should provide a comprehensive and technically sound basis for achieving the stated biodiversity conservation objectives.
The participative approach taken in the PCD should help ensure the achievement of the objectives ofconserving biodiversity, promoting more sustainable forms ofresources use and the successful identification and development of alternative livelihoods for local communities. The design recognizes the importance ofdeveloping both awareness ofconservation issues and active participation of communities and other local stakeholders in the development of effective biodiversity conservation initiatives. The role of the private sector in the conservation of biodiversity could be better developed in the project design.
2. Identification of the global environmental benefits andlor drawbacks of the project The national, West African and more global environmental benefits are clearly set out in the Strategic Context: Sections laand in Section 5.3. A key feature ofthe project is the development of a trans-boundary CCA for a series of ecosystem components shared by Guinea and Guinea- Bissau.
114 There is a risk that the efforts to improve the sustainability of the two target protected areas may be constrained by the lack of effective action in Guinea Bissau to maintain the functional ecological linkages between the wider coastal ecosystem and the island and estuarine ecosystems that help to sustain the planned trans-boundary protected area.
3. How the project fits within the context of the goals of GEF, as well as its operational strategies, program priorities, GEF Council guidance and the provisions of the relevant conventions The project is designed to address the GEF Operational Strategy for the conservation of Biological Diversity. The project directly addresses the goals of the GEF Operational Program no. 2 through measures to strengthen the use of Marine Protected Areas to protect Coastal and Marine Ecosystems through situ conservation. The project also addresses Jakarta Mandate by supporting conservation and sustainable use ofvulnerable marine habitats and species. The project documentation sets out the measures taken to adhere to the COP guidance as follows:
Basing wetland conservation and biodiversity conservation an ecosystem approach. The planned measures could be strengthened as suggested above;
0 Involving local communities and resource users, and building on local knowledge, 0 Strengthening community management for sustainable use or ecosystems and renewable resources; 0 Promotion of economic incentives that support the adoption of alternative livelihood opportunities; 0 Strengthening local and national institutional capacity to address environmental issues through developing a sustainable institutional and legal framework for promoting biodiversity conservation and management, and giving emphasis to participatory models that devolve biodiversity decision-making and management to stakeholders at the local level as per the national governments policies; 0 The project also seeks to strengthen inter-institutional, and multiple stakeholder forums such as the national-level Biodiversity Committee, discussion and 0 Implementation fora in pilot areas, and fisheries committees as a means of promoting integration ofbiodiversity into fisheries policies and resources management decisions.
All ofthe above measures could be extended to specific watersheds in the Coastal Plateau to help reduce the negative impacts on the RAMSAR sites downstream.
4. Regional context The project addresses issues of importance to biological diversity Conservation within the surrounding region by focusing on sites that are representative of other parts of West Africa and contribute to the overall biodiversity of the region. The project seeks to develop effective linkages with other countries in the sub-region, especially with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. One example is the plan to develop trans-boundary management arrangements for one protected area whose ecosystems are common to and shared by Guinea and Guinea-Bissau. It is intended that the trans-boundary management efforts and the measures adopted in Guinea and Guinea-Bissau
115 could be extended to the wider coastal region ofthis part ofWest Africa. Conversely, it would be beneficial to explore ways in which improved management of watersheds in other countries could enhanceladd value to the effect of the biological diversity conservation and erosion control measures proposed for Guinea.
It would be helpful to link the conservation of the two protected area RAMSAR sites with benefits to other ecosystems and natural resources ofthe coastal zone. It would also be beneficial to give stronger emphasis to promoting ways in which improved management of catchmentslwatersheds in other both Guinea and neigbouring countries could enhanceladd value to the effect ofthe biological diversity conservation measures proposed for the protected areas in Guinea, including the one shared with Guinea-Bissau.
5. Replicability of the project (added value for the global environment beyond the project itself) There is good scope for the replication of the planned use of the coastal zone protected area concept in other parts of Guinea, and potentially in other Afiican countries based on the experience gained and lessons learned during the life of the project. It would be useful to give more emphasis to the exchange of information and experience gained through the project with other countries in the region as the project progresses.
6. Sustainability of the project There is a risk that the short-term improvements in the management of the two target RAMSAR sites could be undermined by continuing poor land and water management in the Coastal Plateau. There appears to be good potential for introducing extension of the CCA management model to include discrete catchments upstream in the first phase that could help ensure continuation of the changes the project aims to introduce as the project design incorporates measures for both local participation and for human resources development and institutional strengthening which complement the Government's policies and management priorities, including the PACV.
However, it must be recognized that the planned protected areas are vulnerable to the effects of human pressures resulting in changes to the hydrology and erosion in the Coastal Plateau. To a certain extent, the pressures are being addressed by the PAVC, and the on-going management of the coastal and marine biodiversity management project will need to maintain close working linkages with the PAVC management team to help ensure that potential risks to the sustainability ofbiodiversity conservation efforts in the coastal zone are minimized where ever feasible.
Secondary issues
1. Linkages to other focal areas: The project design appears to be consistent with the stated operational strategies of the other GEF, Bank and other donor focal areas, and avoids negative impacts in focal areas outside the focus of the project. The proposed project activities appear feasible and cost-effective, and should contribute to global environmental benefits in other focal areas and in the cross-sectoral area ofcoastal land and water management.
116 2. Linkages to other programs and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels. The project seeks to build upon past, ongoing and prospective GEF activities. The project design could be strengthened by making more explicit mention of how the planned activities would be coordinated with work of other GEF projects and their respective Implementing Agencies and other bodies. This should include how links would be established with relevant ongoing regional or sub-regional programs and action plans.
3. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects The project seeks to improve the management of wetland ecosystems of importance to more than one sector of the Guinean economy. The planned measure should help reduce conflicts among agencies and economic entities seeking to maximize their respective use of the coastal and marine resources base. Improved management of the RAMSAR sites should yield other ecosystem services and social and economic benefits to local communities and those in the wider region. These benefits could be extended in time and geographic scale if the project was to incorporate improvements in the watersheds upstream as suggested above.
4. Degree of involvement of stakeholders in the project Stakeholder involvement is incorporated as part of the "participative" nature of the planned activities. This addresses GEF emphasis on the development ofactivities to promote community- based management ofbiodiversity. Giving greater emphasis to the role of the private sector and local communities, specifically those concerned with agriculture and forestry in the catchments upstream, and commercial fisheries in the coastal zone could strengthen the project design, The project could also elaborate on the use of concepts such as the co-management of resources, or contracts or negotiations with governments that define each stakeholder's responsibility in managing the resource, and the eventual devolution ofbiodiversity management measure to local groups and NGOs.
5. Capacity-building aspects The project design gives a clear exposition ofmeasures to strengthen public awareness and basic expertise of government officials as well as other stakeholders to support biological diversity conservation. However, the project design would benefit from fbrther clarification of the measures to promote and maintain cooperation between the various groups of stakeholders, and transparent mechanisms to ensure the active participation of relevant stakeholders in the development, implementation and monitoring ofproj ect activities.
6. Innovativeness of the project. Measures designed to assist the Government of Guinea in improving the management of protected areas through the use of protected areas is modestly innovative, The project would have greater innovative features if the ecosystem concept were to be more widely applied to incorporate the catchmentslwatersheds upstream.
Response to STAP Reviewer comment The main technical issue raised as part of the STAP review was the need to clari@ linkages between the coastal zone protected areas and the other parts of the coastal zone ecosystem given their obvious interdependencies, which was also identified in the strategic context section of the report. The design team recognizes the validity of this comment and has subsequent^ elaborated the project description to clarijj that the capacity building activities (component 4 of the project)
117 and micro projects (component 3 of the project) must be seen in the context of a watershed approach given the obvious negative impact of poor management activities upstream on threatened areas downstream and vice versa, how decline of areas downstream will impact areas upstream. Technical support and review of land management plans will therefore also be done on a watershed basis rather than on a CRD basis to ensure that activities are part of a coherent action plan that mutually reinforce each other. All local development plans in the watershed that forms a coherent ecosystem with a protected area will be vetted by a watershed management committee prior to approval to avoid inconsistent or counterproductive activities. Where these are found, discussions will be entered into with local communities to review the proposed activities and on a participatory basis amend the local development plan based on the broader information that the watershed management committee can contribute. In support of this, the local investmentfund under the project supports a window geared towards the financing of activities that have uncertain or limited localized bene@, but likely high regional or global benefits and imp~ementationof which would transcend administrative boundaries. This window would only require limited or no beneficia ry contributions, depending on the activity.
The watershed management committee can also propose and implement activities from this window after consultation of the aflected populations to ensure that broader concerns are included and limited local implementation capacity is not overburdened. Once this approach has been proven, it will be adopted into PACV's approach in other areas.
The STAP reviewer felt that delays in Guinea-Bissau could negatively impact the creation and subsequent successful management of Guinea's first coastal zone protected area as transboundary activities would not be able to take place and thus activities by local populations in Guinea-Bissau have an undesired impact. This risk is judged relatively low by the design team given Guinea-Bissau's extensive experience in this area and the fact that the project supporting the creation of the MPA in Guinea-Bissau is further along in the design process than this project. Also, there will be several donors supporting the activities in Guinea-Bissau (GEF, EU and IDA), supported by IUCN In addition, the design team feels that the prst protected area in the coastal zone can be established in Guinea even ifthere are delays in Guinea-Bissau or if no agreement can be reached between the two countries on management arrangements, as the watershed of the first protected area is only partially impacted by activities in Guinea-Bissau and population densities in these areas are relatively low.
Finally, the STAP reviewer felt that coordination and consultation between this project and other donor supported activities in the coastal zone and the sub-region could be clarified to ensure that there would be an appropriate forum for the exchange of experiences and thus the potential replication of best practices. This is one of the key roles to be played by the coastal zone forum. The forum does so for all donor funded activities. At the national level this would support the harmonization of approaches in the coastal zone, limit duplication of activities and support the integration of sustainable environmental resource use in development activities. At the sub- regional level it seeks to collaborate with other projects or programs that have similar objectives to this project or that may have an impact on Guinea's coastal zone. The forum would seek to learn from such projects through the exchange of information on an annual basis. Thus the forum will also add to sustainability ofproject activities.
118 MAP SECTION
IBRD 34775
14° 12° 10° 8° SENEGAL
Sambailo Youkounkoun
KOUNDARA Guingan R R Saraboido Kamabi Niagassola GUINEA- Termesse Foul Amory Touba Lebekerin Balaki MALI BISSAU Madina M Wora Hy Dayatou 12° Gaya 12° Madina Naboun Fougou Salabande Dougountouni Gada Fello Kolumbia Woundou Telire Koundoua Siguirini Doko R Kounsitel Malea GAOUAL Yembering Linsan Donyel Matakaou Faranwalia R Sigon Fafaya Manda Diatifere MALI Touba Tianguelbori Pilimini KOUBIA Kouratongo M M Banora Kintinian Bankon Dion Kouramangui Wendoum Korbi Tou Ganiakali Bourou Malanta Daleni M Missira Kona M Kolle LELOUMA Tountouroun SIGUIRI Dialakoro Sannou Lansanaya Popodara M M TOUGUE M Kiniebakoura Parawol LABE Tangali Kakoni Sagale Piari M B Kalan Nounkounkan Balandougouba R Garambe M Kalinko DINGUIRAYE Dabiss Heriko Timbi R Madina Hafia Noussi Fatako Koin Missira Koba M Selouma Koundianakoro Sangaredi M Daralabe Mombeya Sansale Ninguelande Kansanyi MR Sintali Niandankoro Kinieran Tanene Sagale Dongol Bantinyel M Kanka PITA Labe Touma R Sansando Sapekal Bourouwal Komola Koura R Tarihoi Kebali Bodie Dialakoro Konsotami Tappe Niantannia BOKE Massi Norassoba Kanfarande B R Ley Miro Mafara Kankama Koundian TELEMELE Dltinn Teguereya Morodou Daramagnaki Miti M M Gongore Cissela Sanguiana Doura R Kollabou Tionthian Arfamoussaya Tristao Kala DABOLA Faralako B Niagara Balato Islands Kamsar R Malapouva Gongore Banko Sinta DALABA M Dogomej R Bate M R Banguigni Sangarea Poredaka Koumana MANDIANA Bintimodia Koba Konindou Nafadji M Bouliwel Timbo Saramoussava N’dema KOUROUSSA Babila Mankountan Sogolon Dounet Baro Baguine Tolo R Kegneko Kindoye Kolle Karifamoudouya Kantoumanina B Kebali Tougnifili Kolia FRIA MAMOU Kiniero Gberedou M Baranama M Balandou Tondon Bangouva B Konkourie M B Passya KANKAN Badi Soya Missamana Saladou Douprou Lisso Koumban Oure-Kaba Bendou Tintioulen BOFFA Tamita Falessade Sougueta Banfele Tanene Samaya B R Sandenia M M Marela Sabadou 10 Wassou R KINDIA FARANAH ° R Baranama 10° Koba Damakania M R Khorira M Nialia Friguiage Madina Heremakono Moribaya Rio M Molota Woula R Kouria Mambia Pongo DUBREK M Maneya Tiro Douako Songoya R Boula COYAH R ATLANTIC Wonkifong Sikhourou Tokounou Komodou CONAKRY Banian Albadaria Mamouroudou Maferiniah R Kakossa R Allassoya Moussava R FORTECARTAH OCEAN Sangardo Linko Karala Kaback Kaliya Mafran R SIERRA LEONE Soromaya Farmoreya Gbangbadou KEROUANE Kobikoro R R M Sokourala 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 KISSIDOUGOU B Firawa Benti Femessadoupombo R Damaro Samamania Diassodou Bendou Koumandou Bambama Banankoro KILOMETERS RAMSAR SITES Vombiro Konsankoro CÔTE SITES RAMSAR Yende Bardou Millimou Koudiadou Fouala 14° Kassadou Sibiribaro C.R.D. INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROJECT Senko C.R.D. COMPRIS DANS LE PROJET Vatanga Binikala R R Kpolodou Gue Dembou Moussadou R D’IVOIRE R CREDIT RURAL Vasseridou Temessadou Bofossou Gnonsamo Gbakedou Gbessoba MAURITANIA CR DIT RURAL Balizia Ridou BEYLA Koundou GUEKEDOU Panziazou M CREDIT MUTUEL MACENTA Diaraguerela M Tekoulo CR DIT MUTUEL Fangamadou Nongowa B Daro M Sengbedou B Kouankan SENEGAL BANKS Wondekenema BANQUES Vouremei R Boola MALI Seredou THE NATIONAL CAPITAL GAMBIA CAPITALE NATIONALE Koropara Foumbadou ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONAL CAPITALS GUINEA- Nzebela Womey 8° CAPITALES DES MINISTØRES R SIDENTS Fassanroni R Gueassou BISSAU R Koule R Goueke Laine 8° BURKINA PREFECTURE CAPITALS Kpale Koyama Soulouta Gama FASO PR FECTURES Kobela Kokota GUINEA Gama Koni-koni LOLA Conakry C.R.D. CENTERS R Tounkarata N’ZEREKORE RM CHEF-LIEU DE C.R.D. Bowe R Yalenzhou BM Nzoo SIERRA CRD BOUNDARIES Pela Bossou This map was produced by the Bounouma LEONE LIMITES DE C.R.D. R R Map Design Unit of The World Bank.
GHANA YOMOU CÔTE D’IVOIRE PREFECTURE BOUNDARIES The boundaries, colors,denominations Banie and any other information shown on LIMITES DES PR FECTURES Beta this map do not imply, on the part of LIBERIA R INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES LIBERIA The World Bank Group, any judgment FRONTIØRES INTERNATIONALES Bignamou Dieke ATLANTIC on the legalstatus of any territory,or any endorsement or acceptance of OCEAN such boundaries. Gulf of Guinea 12° 10° 8° MAY 2006