Documentof The WorldBank FOROFFICIALUSEONLY ReportNo: 33214-GN PROJECTAPPRAISAL DOCUMENT ONA PROPOSEDGRANT FROMTHE GLOBALENVIRONMENTFACILITY TRUST FUND INTHEAMOUNT OFUSD5 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF GUINEA FORA COASTAL, MARINEAND BIODIVERSITYMANAGEMENTPROJECT June 2,2006 Environmentally and Socially SustainableDevelopment (AFTS4) Country Department 10 AfricaRegion This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwisebe disclosedwithout World Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate EffectiveJanuary 30,2006) Currency Unit = GuineanFrancs, GNF 4,293 GNF = US$1 US$1.45 = SDR 1 FISCALYEAR January 1 - December31 ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS ADC Communal Development Agent (Agent deDbveloppement Communautaire) AFD Agence Franqaisede Dkveloppement AGR Income GeneratingActivities (Activitbs Gbne'ratricesde Revenus) AV Village Animator (Animateur villageois) BSAP Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan Convention on Biological Diversity cc CBD Community Council (Cunseil Communa~taire) CENAGAP National Center for the Management ofProtectedAreas (Centre~ationalde Gestion des Aires Protbgbes) CFAA Country FinancialAccountability Assessment CNC NationalCoordination Unit (Cellule at ion ale de Coordination) CND National Commission onDecentralization (Commission Nationale de la D&entralisation) CNDD National Commission for SustainableDevelopment (Commissionn at ion ale pour leDheloppementDurable) CNE NationalEnvironment Council (Conseil ~ationalde E 'Environnement) CNSH-B NationalFisheries ResearchInstitute (CentreNational des Sciences Halieutiques de Boussora) CP Steering Committee (Comitbde Pilotage) CR Regional Coordinator (Coordinateur Rbgional) CRD RuralDevelopment Commune (CommunautbRurale deDhveloppement) CZM Coastal Zone Management DND NationalDecentralization Directorate (Direction ati ion ale de la Dbcentralisation) DNEF NationalDirectorate for Forestry andWater (DirectionNationaledes Eaux et Forzts) DNH NationalDirectorate for Water ResourceManagement (DirectionNationalede l'Hydraulique) DPC Participative Community-levelDiagnostic (Diagnostique Participatf Communautaire) DPDRE! Prefectoral Directorate for RuralDevelopment andthe Environment (DirectionPrbfectorale du DbveloppementRural et de I'Environnement) ESMF Environmental and SocialManagement Framework GIS Geographic InformationSystem GNF GuinCeNouveauFranc HDI HumanDevelopment Index ICZ Integrated ConservationZone IFR InterimUnaudited Financial Reports IRD Institute de Recherchepour le Dbveloppement LIF LocalInvestment Fund(FTL) LME LargeMarineEcosystems LPDA AgriculturalDevelopment Policy Letter (Lettrede Politiique de DbveloppementAgricole) M&E MonitoringandEvaluation MAE Ministry o fAgriculture and Livestock (Minist&-ede 1'Agricultureet de E 'Elevage) MATD MinistryofInteriorandDecentralization (MinistGrede 1'Administration du Territoire et de la Dbcentralisation) ME MinistryofEnvironment (MinistGre de 1'Environnement) MEF MinistryofEconomyandFinance (Minist~rede 1'Economieet des Finances) MP Ministry o f Planning(Ministkredu Plan) MPA MarineProtected Area NCSA NationalCapacity Self-Assessmentfor Global Environment Management NEPAD New Partnershipfor Africa's Development NRM Natural ResourcesManagement 0GI"ONRG Observatoire GuinCeMaritimelObservatoire Nationalde laRkpublique 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 LandManagement Project (Projet de Gestion Communautaire des Terres) PRCM Regional Program for the Conservation of Coastal andMarineProtectedAreas inWest Afiica (ProgrammeRbgional de Conservation de la Zone Ciitigreet Marine de E'Afiique de I'Ouest) PRSP PovertyReductionStrategy Paper RCU RegionalCoordinating Unit(UnitbRbgionale de Coordination, URC) RPF Resettlement ProcessFramework SFC Sub-regional Fishery Commission SLM Sustainable LandManagement SPD Prefectoral Development Division(Service Prbfectoral deDbveloppement) STAP Scientific andTechnical Advisory Panel UNDP UnitedNationsDevelopment Program URC RegionalCoordination Unit(Unitb Rbgionale de Coordination) VCSP Village Communities Support Program (Programme d 'Appui aux Communautbs Villageoises, PACY) Vice President: GobindT. Nankani Country Director: Mats Karlsson Sector Manager: MaryA.Barton-Dock Task TeamLeader: DirkNicolaasPrevoo GUINEA CoastalMarineandBiodiversityManagementProject CONTENTS Page A. STRATEGIC CONTEXTAND RATIONALE ................................................................. 1 1. Country andsectorissues .................................................................................................... 1 2. Rationale for Bank involvement ......................................................................................... 2 3. Higher levelobjectives to which the project contributes.................................................... 2 B PROJECTDESCRIPTION . ................................................................................................. 4 1. Lendinginstrument............................................................................................................. 4 2. Project Intervention Zones.................................................................................................. 5 3. Descriptiono fBaseline Project .......................................................................................... 5 4. GEFProject development objective andkeyindicators..................................................... 7 5. Project components ............................................................................................................. 9 6. Lessons learned andreflected inthe project design.......................................................... 12 7. Alternatives considered andreasons for rejection ............................................................ 13 C IMPLEMENTATION . ........................................................................................................ 14 1. Partnership arrangements (ifapplicable) .......................................................................... 14 2. Institutionalandimplementation arrangements................................................................ 14 3. Linkages with other Projects............................................................................................. 15 4 . Monitoringandevaluation o foutcomeslresults................................................................ 15 5. Sustainability andReplicability........................................................................................ 16 6. Criticalrisks andpossible controversial aspects............................................................... 18 7. Loadcredit conditions andcovenants............................................................................... 21 D. APPRAISAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 22 1. Economic andfinancialanalyses...................................................................................... 22 2. Technical........................................................................................................................... 23 3. Fiduciary........................................................................................................................... 23 4. Social................................................................................................................................. 24 5. Environment...................................................................................................................... 25 6. Safeguardpolicies............................................................................................................. 25 7. Policy ExceptionsandReadiness...................................................................................... 26 Annex 1:Country and Sector or ProgramBackground ......................................................... 27 Annex 2: Major Related Projects Financedby the Bank andlor other Agencies .................34 Annex 3: Results Framework and Monitoring ........................................................................ 37 Annex 4: DetailedProject Description ...................................................................................... 47 Annex 5: Project Costs............................................................................................................... 59 Annex 6: Implementation Arrangements ................................................................................. 60 Annex 7: FinancialManagement and Disbursement Arrangements ..................................... 63 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements ...................................................................................... 68 Annex 9: Economic and FinancialAnalysis ............................................................................. 72 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 74 Annex 11:Project Preparationand Supervision ..................................................................... 77 Annex 12: Documents inthe Project File ................................................................................. 79 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits .............................................................................. 80 Annex 14: Country at a Glance ................................................................................................. 81 Annex 15: IncrementalCost Analysis ....................................................................................... 83 Annex 16: Roots-Threats-Analys is ............................................................................................ 94 Annex 17: Project InterventionArea and Target Sites ......................................................... 100 Annex 18: STAP Roster Review .............................................................................................. 113 Annex 17: Map No IBRD 34775 . ............................................................................................. 119 GUINEA COASTAL MARINEAND BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PROJECT APPRAISALDOCUMENT AFRICA AFTS4 Date: June 1,2006 TeamLeader: DirkNicolaas 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 FocalArea: Biodiversity services (10%); Central government LendingInstrument:Specific Investment Loan administration (5%) Themes: Environmental policies and institutions (P); Biodiversity (P); Participation andcivic engagement(P); Decentralization (P); Ruralnon-farm income generation (P) Environmental screening category: Partial Assessment [ ] Loan [ ] Credit [XIGrant [ ] Guarantee [ ] Other: For LoanslCreditslOthers: Total Bank financing(US$m.): 0.00 Proposed terms: Borrower: MinistryofFinance Conakry Guinea ResponsibleAgency: PACV-CNC Conakry Guinea Tel: (224) 46 40 23 Fax: (224) 46 40 31 Email:pacv@afiibone.net.gn `FY 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Annual 0.20 0.50 1.50 1.50 1.30 Cumulative 0.20 0.70 2.20 3.70 5.00 Project implementationperiod: Start October 2,2006 End:June 30,2011 Expected effectiveness date: October 2,2006 Expectedclosingdate: December 31,2011 A. STRATEGICCONTEXTAND RATIONALE 1. Countryandsector 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 i s the dominant activity o f the rural population (65 percent o f employment), while 30 percent o f the rural population is practicing livestock holding. The importance o f fishing (5 percent o f rural employment) is reflected in its contribution to the national diet (40 percent o f animal proteins are provided by fish consumption). Household energy depends for 99 percent on wood fuels, and the healthcare system depends for 80 percent ontraditional medicine practices, which rely on the availability o f 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 o f the country's territory, i s home to about 40 percent o f Guinea's population. Studies o f coastal populationtrends over time indicate a spectacularincrease o f 292 percent between 1963 and 1996. This population explosion i s due to the fact that the coast is traditionally a resource-rich area (agro-pastoralism, minerals, fish) and that this i s where most o fthe cities are located, includingthe capital, Conakry. One-quarter o f West Afkica's mangrove wetland ecosystem, which stretches from Senegal to northern Angola, lies along Guinea's coast. The irregularity o f Guinea's mangrove dominated shoreline provides a multitude o f ecological niches. These habitats, particularly the marine and estuarine waters, are known to be among the richest on the West African coast in terms o f diversity, productivity andfoodpotential. They are essential for the survival of several species o f migratingbirds that are globally endangeredor threatened, and for species that are economically important (fish and game). The ecology o f this wetland system is closely entwined with that o f the `upstream' coastal plateau and the `down stream' continental sea shelf. This coastal ecology i s coming under tremendous pressure fiom increased demand for land for food production, transhumance, fuel wood, etc. These pressures have been exacerbated by the persistence o f poverty and lack o f alternative sources o fincomeor access to adaptedtechnologies amongthe ruralpopulation. Unless current ways o f managing these natural resources change, an irreversible degradation o f the ecosystems i s 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 alsojeopardize sub-regional and international efforts to protect andmaintain significant coastal ecosystem inparticular related to Guinea's important mangrove stands. A concerted effort at national and local level is necessary. However, as inmany other countries inthe sub-region, the institutional framework, andthe capacity to implement laws andpolicies, i s insufficientto cope with the complexity and dynamics of integrated coastal zone management. 1 A large number of institutions, linked to various sectors, are engagedin a variety of economic activities that directly or indirectly affect coastal wetland and marine ecosystems. These institutionshave different mandates, withpotentially competingpolicies 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 andsustainableapproachto coastal zone management faces challenges, such as (i) low technical, human and financial capacity o f many o f these institutions in coastal resource management; and (ii)lack o f effective mechanism to coordinate activities and establish consultation among various institutions and donor-fimded activities whose activities have direct impacts oncoastal ecosystems. The Coastal Marine and Biodiversity Management Project (Project) i s designed to address these issues in collaboration with ongoing regional initiatives. It i s a five year project focused on developing the local and national institutional capacity necessary to halt and where possible reverse the consequenceso funsustainableresource use andto conservekeybiodiversity intarget 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 Bankinvolvement 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. Inaddition, the Bankhasrecognized participatory community-based approaches as key to the successful implementation o f rural development activities. The Bank adds value through providing technical assistance for designing and implementing coastal andbiodiversity projects that draw on worldwide experience gainedthrough management o f its important GEF portfolio. The Bank, as a GEF implementing agency, can therefore bring incremental grant resources andpartnerships with other stakeholdersto assist Guinea intackling coastal andmarinebiodiversity issues o f global environmental concern. Inthe particular case o f 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 i s expected fkom collaboration with the BanklGEF supported coastal project inneighboring Guinea-Bissau to form a larger transboundary conservation area. 3. Higher level objectivesto 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 o f the natural resource base inGuinea'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. Inparticular, it will contribute to an increase in the productivity o f rural assets (labor and land) through the conservation, regeneration, and sustainable use o f natural resources, and thus indirectly to increased rural revenues and increased food security. Inaddition, it will strengthen the institutional capacity of localgovernments andproducer organizations to identify, design andimplement such activities. The Project also supportsthe Millenium Development Goals o freducedpoverty andhunger (#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 multilateraldevelopment institutions to rural development. It specifically targets the issue o fnatural resource degradation. The Project i s in conformity with the Afiica Action Plan, in particular Pillars Iand 111. Concerning Pillar I, supports the integration o f database systems into national structure. All it impact studies will be done through a public institute attached to the Ministry o f Planningand built-upwith support ofthe French Government andthe French GEF. All data collectedthrough this Project will likewise be stored in an internet accessible portal to ensure sustainability o f information. Concerning Pillar 111, it supports the drivers o f growth by increasing agricultural productivity through the introduction o f sustainable land management practices and builds the capacity o f women and the poor though its socially inclusive capacity building activities and support to income generation through matchinggrants anddemonstration activities. Guinea ratifiedthe 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 Programon Coastal, Marine andFreshwater Ecosystems (OP 2). Iti s inline with guidance from the first, second and third Conference o f the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, which stresses in situ conservation o f coastal and marine ecosystems. It specifically responds to the Jakarta Mandate by supporting conservation and sustainable use o f vulnerable marine habitats and species. TheProjectrespondsto OP 2 guidance invarious ways including: 0 taking an ecosystem approach to conservation; 0 involvinglocalcommunities andresource users, includingbuildingon localknowledge; 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 promotingbiodiversity conservation and management, and favoring participatorymodels that devolve biodiversity decision-making and.management to stakeholders at the local level; Guinea ratified further the World Heritage Convention in1979, the Washington Convention onthe International Trade inEndangered Species (CITES) on 20 December 1981; the RAMSAR Conventionin1993, the Conventionto Combat Desertification inJanuary 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 o f 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 o f biodiversity into fisheries policies and decisions TheproposedProject seeks to design andtest approaches that integratebiodiversityconservation 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 i s consistent with the strategic priorities for biodiversity and capacity buildingunder GEF-3. Inparticular, this Project fits well under SP Iand I1of the biodiversity focal area. The Project will support Guinea with the creation o f its first coastal conservation area which would incorporate two RAMSAR-designated wetlands o f high global and national biodiversity value (Tristao and Alcatraz) and which would eventually become part o f a wider network o f coastal and marine protected areas inthe country and sub-region. Inparticular, 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 o f coastal andmarineareas under improved management for conservation and an increase o f 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 localchange agents andcommunities, is at the center o f the Project's approach. Inaddition, the Project will mainstreamenvironmentally sustainablecoastal landuseplanningat all levels (communities, and local andnational government). Finally, the GEF Project respondsto 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 o f diverse approachesandtools, and (ii) the establishment o f protected areas consistent with international law and based on scientific information, including representative networks by 2012. The proposed Project thus reflects national, sub-regional and international priorities for coastal and marine management as well as for biodiversity conservation. B. PROJECTDESCRIPTION 1. Lendinginstrumeut GEF full-sizedproject (US$S,O million) to be implementedover five years. 4 2. Project InterventionZones 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 o f watershed coverage will be sought with the planned Community-Based Land Management Project (PGCT). As part o f project preparation three priority RAMSAR sites were identified, Islands o f Tristao, Alcatraz Island, andRio Pongo. A root causes and threats analysis is presented in Annex 18. Identification was done in collaboration with the Regional Program for the Conservation o f Coastal and Marine Protected Areas in West Afkica (ProgrammeRkgional de Conservation de Ea Zone C6tidre et Marine de E 'Afiique de I 'Quest, PRCM), which includes a wide representation o finternational NGOs. 3. DescriptionofBaseline Project The Project will be associated with the first and second phase o f the PACV and implemented from 2006-2011. Start-up o f the GEF Project will coincide with the last year o f the ongoing first phase o f the PACV, while full implementation (four years) would coincide with the second phase (2007-201 1). Selection o f initial intervention areas has kept into account existing coastal zone coverage o f the PACV. The GEF Project is intendedto be a catalyst for sustainablenatural resource use. Its results will be fully integrated and scaled up along the entire coastal zone, as partofthe thirdphaseofthe PACV (2011-2014). This Project has been requested by the Government o f 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 betweensustainableresource use supportedbythe Project with the provisiono f basic infrastructure services and targeted capacity buildingthrough the PACV. The synergistic effect i s demonstrated as follows: PACV support to develop and implement local development plansof coastal CRDs are targeted moretowards social infi-astructureinvestments 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 o f new technological approaches (for instance for improved energy efficiency in fuel wood use, and soil and forest management). Inthis 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 inlocal development plans and activities. The incremental cost financed byGEF is thus extremely important for the processo fdeveloping 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 Franqaisede DCveloppement (AFD) andthe Government o f Guinea. This program seeks to reduceruralpoverty through capacity-building at the levelo fthe CRD. IFADco-financing hasbeenfully utilizedand anew loanis under preparationto support the secondphaseofthe PACV. 5 The PACV has three phases and was to be implemented over a period o f 12 years, in three phases o f 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 o f implementation start-up delays andpostponement of the local elections, which were a trigger for secondphase financing. An additional financing grantwas approved bythe BoardonJanuary 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 i s currently under preparation, is expected to be launched inmid-2007. All 303 CRDs are to be included inthe PACV bythe end o f its second phase. The first phase of the PACV has three specific objectives: (i) establish an effective and efficient mechanism for transferring public funds to local communities for the financing o f prioritized rural community infrastructure; (ii) improve the regulatory, institutional, and fiscal environment anddevelop localcapacity for decentralized ruraldevelopment; and(iii) rehabilitate andpromote regular maintenance o finfrastructure andrural roads. The PACV has tremendously improved the access o f communities to basic social services, includinghealth, education, and potable water, with the construction o f 263 elementary schools, 155 health centers and dispensaries, and 167 water holes. Inaddition, the PACV has supported the establishment o f 46 communal forests. The rehabilitation o f rural roads and construction o f 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 o f strengthening local governance and promoting the rural population's social and economic empowerment i s 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 o f development activities. Local tax collection has also increased dramatically inresponse to the need to raise contributions for local development activities funded by external financiers and the close involvement o f beneficiaries in the decision-making process. The PACV experienced initial start-up delays becausethe 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-kindcontribution (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 i s testimony that it hasbroadcommunity support. One unplanned - and positive - impact o f 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 o f 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 planningprocesspioneeredbythe PACV as the solevehicle for implementinglocaldevelopment activities. The PACV presently includes three components: (i)local investment fund to finance village a infrastructure; (ii)support for local development; and (iii)programmanagement, 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 anInnovation Fund(Fonds dyppui rE l'Innovation, FAI). The F Nwill help finance a predetermined menuof basic social infrastructure, such as education, health, drinkingwater and sanitation facilities, and village access roads. Total first phase funding for these activities i s estimated at US$lS.O million. Support for Local Development component supports the rationalizationand operationalization o f the regulatory and institutional environment for local development. The component includes support to five sets o f 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 o f the Ministry o f the Interior and Decentralization ( ~ i n i s t ~ der e 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 inthe areas o f 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 o f the PACV will buildon the strengths o f the first phase and will add a pilot landsecurity component as well as expand the basket o f eligible activities to include support for socio-economic micro-projects. In addition, the secondphase seeks to attain national coverage. At the present time, the Bank and IFAD are likely to provide about US$35-40 million for the secondphase. Discussions with Government andother donors are ongoing. 4. GEF Project development objective and key indicators The GEFProject's overalldevelopment objective is to promote rationalmanagemento f Guinea's coastal biodiversity for both conservation and sustainable development ends in selected priority areas, with a particular emphasis on assisting communities inand around these priority areas to plan, implement and maintain environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive alternative livelihoodsoptions. 7 The GEFProject's gZobaZ envi~on~entaZobjective is to promote the conservationof globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea's coastal zone in selected priority areas encompassing coastal W S A R sites. The GEF Project will work with local, national, regional and international partners to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation andsustainableuse ofgloballyimportant biologicalresourcesinGuinea's coastalzone. The GEF Project's development and global environmental objectives should be viewed within the context o f a longer term and sub-regional effort spearheadedby the PRCMthat: (a) supports the development o f a network o f participatorily-managed coastal protected areas o f 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 strengthensustainableuseo fthe natural resources inthe 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 1and2: I The progress towards achieving GEF Project outcomes will be assessed through the following keyperformance indicators (see also Annex 3): Effective participation of communities living around the protected area in its management, through the establishment o f a stakeholder management committee, by the end o f Project period. Assessment of this effectiveness will be done through the WWFlWorld Bank.Alliance site levelmanagement effectiveness tracking tool. Stabilization o f natural resource base in areas under cultivation in Project watershed target sites by endofProject (about 10,000 ha) as measuredthroughtechnical audits; 0 Positive trend for key species and water quality indicators (baseline to end o f Project) basedon the indicators detailed inthe Project Impact Evaluation Manual and for which a baseline will be determinedwithin six months o fProject start-up; and 0 MinistryofEnvironment iscapableofassessingthe impactofproposedandon-going development activities inthe coastal zone andproposing mitigationmeasures, through satisfactorily conducted environmental impact assessments as confirmedthroughthe 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 identifiedby 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 o f MPA, varying considerably in their purpose or objective; size and level o f 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 o f the other identified W S A R 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 inthe PACV and go beyond the objectives of the PACV. Insupport o f 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 (Ministryo fPlanning, Ministry of Fisheries throughthe National Fisheries Research Center (Centre National des Sciences ~alieutiques- Boussoura; CNSH-B), Ministry of Environment, Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock, and PRCM. Below follows a summary o fthe five components, details are provided inAnnex 4. Component 1: Protection and Conservation of Coastal RAMSAR Sites This is the first o fthe two additional components, which do not have an equivalent inPACV. It willhavethree sub-components: 1.1 Establishment of IntegratedConservation Zone. This sub-component aims to establish at least one integrated coastal conservation zone and develop management plans through participatory mechanisms. Two interventionareas, incorporating wetlands recognized under the RAMSAR Convention, willbe included(i) Tristao andIle Alcatraz (two separatesitesunder Iles the RAMSAR Convention) and(ii) Pongo. Rio 1.2. Conservation Zone Management. This sub-component aims to support the implementation o f 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 o f the coastal conservation zone around TristaolAlcatraz, including restoration. The scope o f this sub-component will depend mostly on the management scheme adopted andactivities will be site specific. 1.3. Impact Monitoring and Evaluation. This sub-component aims to build impact monitoringand evaluation capacity for the two identifiedsites, DuringGEF Project preparation, innovative socio-economic and ecological indicators have been developed, tested and validated by communities inproximity to the target sites. These impact indicators have been reviewed in detail and are fully integrated into the Project's impact monitoringand evaluation (M&E) system. In addition, site management effectiveness will be measured annually through the adapted WWF-World Banktrackingtool for protected areas. The lead agency for implementingthis 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 o f Guinea (Obsewatoire de la Giinke Maritime - Obsewatoire National de la Rkpublique de Guinke, OGWONRG'). Targeted support will be provided under this component (establishment o f on-site base, operating costs, minimal equipment andtransportation). To become a public institution(MinistryofPlanning) withautonomouscharacterand extendedgeographic across 4 themes: Biodiversity, ruralsystems, innovation(socio-economic), andpoverty. 9 Component2: Enablingenvironmentfor IntegratedCoastalZone 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 o f activities would be supported: (i)studytoidentifyoptionsforfinancialsustainabilityoftheestablishmentandmanagementof a 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 o f Ministryo f Environment (ME) and other line ministries involved in coastal conservation, investigate local level partnerships with financial anddevelopment agents for continued implementation o fproductive activities that combine conservation with socio-economic use of the ecosystem, and review the viability o f the Environmental Fund (Fonds de Sauvegarde de I'Environne~ent,FSE), which was created by Government but never operationalized. (ii) capacitybuildingoftheMinistryofEnvironment's OfficefortheCoordinationof targeted Strategies and Planning (Bureau de Coordination des Stratbgies, de la Plan~cationet de la Prospective, BCSPP) in the area o f environmental impact assessment that would enable this structure to evaluate the impact o f proposed upstream mining and large infrastructure activities andbeapartner inthe development ofeventualmitigationactivities. (iii) oftheadequacyofthelegalframeworkrelatedtoICZmanagementonthebasisof review existingrecommendations. (iv) basic training and participationinworkshops to deepennational understanding of different management approaches to integrated coastal zone management. Targeted beneficiaries would be from the various ministriesincluding deconcentratedstaffinvolvedinthe GEFProject. ME, through CENAGAP and BCSPP, will be the lead agency for implementing this sub- component. Targeted support will beprovided (training, consulting services, minimal equipment andoperating costs), 2.2. CoastalZone KnowledgeandCommunication.This sub-component is concernedwith the existing knowledge, communication and coordination gaps at international, national, and local levels identifiedinthe GEFProject's communications strategy. Ithas two sets o factivities: (i) establishment o f 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) totheexistingInfocenteroftheOGWONRGtofacilitateandenhanceaccessto support coastal and marine related information. The GEF Project would support the creation and maintenance ofaninternet-basedportal. The lead agency for implementing this sub-component will be MP. Targeted support will be provided (consulting services, study tours, minimal equipment, andoperating costs). Component3: LocalInvestmentFund. 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). Procedureswill be transparent so that for communities there i s only one LIF (details defined inLIFmanual), with different funding windows. Eligibilitycriteria for activities have been defined andproject preparation funds have been usedto test the interest, participation andtechnical and financial feasibility o f eligible micro-projects inthe CRD Kanfarandk around the Tristao islands. This component will be managed by the Regional Coordination Unit (UnitC Rkgionale de Coordination, URC) o f the PACV in Bok& This URC was planned to be created under the secondphase o fthe PACV. The GEF Project will finance its first year of operation. Component4: Supportfor LocalCapacityBuilding, 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 o f Government's decentralization policy. The PDL i s developed usingparticipatory processestested by the PACV. Current PDLs focus primarilyon community-based infrastructures as this was the limitation o f 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 o f micro and sub-watersheds inside the CRD would serve as geographic basis for the planningprocess. The PDL for Kanfarandk was successfully adaptedas part o f GEF Project preparation. This component will be managed by the National Directorate for Decentralization (Direction ati ion ale de la Dkcentralisation, DND) o f MATD. The GEF Project will provide incremental support (consulting services, training andstudy tours, minimal equipment, andoperating costs), Component5: ProgramManagement,MonitoringandEvaluation The objective of this component i s to ensure cost-effective, efficient and streamlined implementation of the four other components. The GEF Project would provide limited incremental fundingto the operational structures o f PACV andtake advantage o f cost-efficiency gains through baseproject services. 11 6. Lessonslearned and reflected inthe project design Lessonshave been taken from Guinea and a number o f other projects, financed by the Bank and other institutions, which have shared the goal of integrated coastal zone management and the establishment o fprotected areas andeffective, sustainablemanagement systems. {i) Weak institutionalandlocalcapacity andlack o fparticipation. Institutionalcapacity on the national andlocallevels hasbeenweak, mainly due to the paucity of human and financial resources. As a result, proposed measures and regulations remain inoperative inthe field. At the same time, the process o f decentralization has remained weak in terms o f 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 maypartially explain the mixedresults obtained so far inthis area. .. {ii) Needto consider environmental concerns incoastal zone interventions andconstraints. Over the past fifty years, public investment in the coastal region has been concentrated essentially on the problem o f self-sufficiency in rice production. The preferred approach has beento stabilize and intensify productionby developing hydro-agricultural infrastructure on vast expanses o f coastal wetland. The agro-economic and ecological results o f these interventions remainmixed, evento this day, andhavecontributed to the disappearanceofmangrove forests. (iii)Thelackofaholisticapproachtodevelopment. There has been a lack o f data and information to provide a basis for decision making and planningprocesses at all levels4. Inaddition, 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 (interms ofscopeandfunding) exceptions: 0 mangrove project inthe Bay o f Sangarbah; 0 coastal studies project; 0 project concerning the RAMSAR Convention onthe protectiono fbirdspecies; 0 seaturtle protectionproject; 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 inthe 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 onthe whole system. 0 There i s a need to accept beneficiaries in all their complexity @e., their multifarious For example, manyprojects generated sectoral assessmentreports, manuals andprogress reports but there are not systematically collected, shared andused. Supportedby Frenchfinding, the Atlas ofMaritime Guinea provides a wealth o finformationbut is not sufficiently disseminated andknown. 12 activities, and individual and collective strategies) and interms o f their political, social and economic reality (which constitutes the dynamic and external aspect o f Maritime Guinea's evolution). 0 Beneficiaries must be involved and given the necessary information on which to base their considerations as it i s only them who have a vital interest in conservation, either because their livelihoods depend directly on biological resources or because their quality o f life depends significantly on use and existence values o f biodiversity. They need to be helped in this task, from the design stage up to the phase o f simulating post-project management. The problems o f landtenure andpossible landre-apportionment need to be dealt with. 0 It is important to take the time to help beneficiaries andto train them, over the course of several cropping seasons, in the use o f the proposed new techniques. They should also receive feedback on the results o f any sociological, technical and economic monitoring that hastaken place. 0 Methods o fmass communication mustbe developed so that the project's contacts are not limited to a few individuals who may not be representative o f the population. Increased participationby interested stakeholders and, inparticular, local communities, NGOs, and the private sector must be ensured. There should be an independent scientific structure capable o f measuring trends and dynamics at the regional level andover anindeterminate periodoftime. Past experience shouldbe exploited andits results disseminated. 0 Establishing financial mechanismsthat fully cover operational costs on a sustainable and long-termbasis. 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-raisingefforts (e.g., meetings, debates, etc.) under component 1, 2 and component 4 before expanding coverage to include the remaining 17 CRDs inthe coastal zone. 0 Train beneficiaries and involve them in design and implementation, with close monitoringunder component 1,3 and4. 0 Strengthen the legislative andinstitutionalframework under component 2. 0 Strengthen (existing) institutional entity(s) for surveillance and coordination o f coastal zone development under component 1 and 2 (DNEF, CNSH-B, Ministry o f Environment). 0 Set-up mechanisms to monitor adherenceto commitments under component 1and2. 7. Alternatives consideredand reasonsfor rejection Therewere two mainalternatives considered: (a) A free-standing GEFproject aimed at the creation ofGuinea's first protected areaaround the islands o f Tristao andAlcatraz. This alternative was rejected. Inthe absence of a link with a broader based local development operation, limited incrementalresources would not allow for an 13 adequate scaling up o f 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 GEFproject which is fully blendedinto the existing PACV project design. This option was rejected because the scope o f 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 primarymission. Inaddition, the project requires a broader ownership. The partially blended option that was chosenbuilds upon the strengths o f the different agencies involved and addresses weaknessesby incorporating numerous, competent partnerslstakeholders to work with CNSH-B, DNEF, Ministry o f Environment and Ministry o f 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 sustainablenatural resource use inlocal development. C. IMPLEMENTATION 1. Partnershiparrangements(ifapplicable) The Project has been designed by Government to be fully in line with sub-regional efforts as promoted by the PRCM. Inthis regard, the Steering C o b i t t e e insupport o f the process o f the creation o f an Integrated Coastal Conservation Zone covering part o f the Tristao and Alcatraz Islands, and supported by the PRCM, will provide technical support to the SC o fthe PACV. The four established PRCM technical working groups (institutional, legal, etc.) will be used and financially supportedbythe GEFProject as relevant. 2. Institutionalandimplementationarrangements Overall management and coordination o f the GEF Project will be ensured by the Project Coordination Unit (Cellule Nationale de Coordination, CNC) under the Ministry o f Planning. The PACV CNC, which has shown its strength during the implementation o f the first phase of the PACV, will be appropriately strengthened by the GEF Project with the addition o f (i) an accountant, (ii) procurement assistant, (iii)a geographer specialized in GIs systems to a 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 o f creating an ICZ. Such a decentralized technical support will also be inline with supervision missionrecommendations, which point to the need for closer supervision and strengthened local support. Some o f 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 o f experience gained and the recommendations of a recently launched GEFlUNDP supported capacity assessment o fthe Ministryo f Environment (NCSA). Eachresponsible agency will designatea focal point that would liaisewith the CNC. The remainingthree componentswill becompletely integrated into the PACV andimplemented throughits existingmechanisms. Project implementation will be on the basis of detailed work programs. For each component a detailedwork programhasbeenprepared for the first 18 months o f implementation. Preparation o f 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 bethe responsibility o f PACV'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 andbudget for the following year are discussed, while the secondmeetingis used to review progress towards attaining work program objectives. Implementation progress o f work programs will be reviewed bi-monthly by the Technical Implementation Committee (Comitb technique d'exkccution,CTE) o f the PACV, which would be enlargedto include the focal points for components one andtwo. 3. Linkages with other Projects The main partners o f 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 1and 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) hasbeen includedinthe PGCT's design to ensurethat selectedCRDs inthe coastal zone, form to the extent possible contiguous zones with PGCT interventionzones, 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 mechanismsat the regionallevels. 4. Monitoringand 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 o f all the project's stakeholders, including the executing agencies responsible for implementing the different project activities, CRDs for the micro-projects, 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. Inorder to avoid havingto builda separate system, usewill be The present SC does not include the Ministryo fEnvironment. The SC will be expanded to include such representationprior to GrantEffectiveness. 15 made o f existing project supported Monitoring and Evaluation Units in the CNC, CNSH-B, DNEF, DNSandthe OGM. Monitoring o fProject implementationwillbethe responsibility o f eacho fthe 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 o f the project (PACV, GEF Project and PGIE). These analyses will be conductedjointly bythe Government o f Guinea and co-financiers of the PACV and the GEF Project. These reviews will be based in part on the results and recommendations o f the evaluations indicated above and will help make adjustments resulting in a more efficient implementation o f the Project. A detailed joint PACVlGEF Project M&E manual has been preparedandreviewedbythe Bank. Impact indicators have been developed inaccordancewith guidelines for GEF-financed projects andincludebiologicallecological andsocio-economic parameters. The baseline study carried out by OGM (finalized duringpreparation) 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 approachhasbeentested intwo pilot sites inthe coastal zone (around Tristao and Pongo) and represents a highly participatory approach to assess first community perceptions o f 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 inthe local monitoring and evaluation process (data collection and interpretation). Collection o f other indicators specific to this project, such as information on species (flora and fauna), water quality, land use, etc., has beentested as part of project preparation. It should be recognized that long-term project impact cannot be easily measuredduringthe five years o f project implementation, acknowledging also that climatic influences play an important role, however, the collected data will contribute to a better knowledge o f coastal zone issues, help make informeddecisions and serve as a solid foundation to evaluate follow-on activities. 5. SustainabilityandReplicability 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 i s a central theme of the proposed Project, which aims to enable integrated management o f the coastal zone. Guinea has recognized that coastal and marine biodiversity concerns cannot be addressedin isolation, and will be affected bybroader development decisions inandoutside the coastal zone. Theproject will therefore also seek to support an improved legal and institutional fiamework, primarily in the form of environmental assessment regulations and harmonization o f legislation, to ensure the judicious management o f environmental and social factors and thus promote adoption o f a sustainable economic development path. Moreover, the project will be firmly embedded in long-term sub- 16 regionalefforts (see PRCMframework). Finally, the broader approach to localcapacity building andmenu of micro-projects eligible for funding under the project, which will be tested inup to 17 CRDs inthe 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 elementsare: Targeted capacitv building at local, rerzional and national level: Project design emphasizes human resource capacity building as a key aspect to the sustainability o f 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 o f their environment; and (iii)increasing stakeholder capacity to jointly plan, manage andmonitor biodiversity conservation andsustainableuse of the coastal zone, and environmental impact assessment processesmorebroadly. Alternative livelihoodoptions for communities: The project seeks to test and develop alternative livelihood strategies that will promote sustainable use o f the local resource base. The LIF mechanism itselfis not designedto be sustainableinthe absence o f follow-on funding, however, it is designedto help communities establish aminimumbasis from which to escape the poverty trap which until presently i s stifling local development and encouraging overuse o f 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 o f alternative livelihood options exist before tryingto fully institutionalize any one mechanism; and (ii) sustainableuse o f 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- institutionalpartnerships, to facilitate the bringingtogether of scientific and technical skills with public authorities for the purpose o f disseminating knowledge andpractices for the conservation and upholding of the coastal zone environment, and of disseminating the results to the country andthe world community. Itis hopedthat the approachofcombiningthe conservation ofpriority biodiversity sites with the improvement o f 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 inGuinea to sustainable coastal and marine development around R A M S A R sites, it is expectedthat the lessonslearnedwill inthe fbture bemainstreamed into other potentialprotected areas so as to leadto awider coverage andnetwork. Participation: The adoption o fparticipatoryplanningmechanisms and strategic partnerships with stakeholders, as well as social assessments and monitoring o f conditions ensuring social sustainability o f 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 assurea more comprehensive approach to the root causes o f biodiversity loss. The project will put key emphasis on participation o f local communities throughout the process o f 17 creating an ICZ around the TristaolAlcatraz site. Furthermore, the project will support income- generation activities to remove pressureonprecious ecosystems andhabitats (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 studywillbe evaluatedbymid-term. Ralicabilitv: The project's design includes elements for replication in each component. Component 1 will develop an operational toolbox to facilitate establishment o f 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 I1implementation process but also guide scaling up during the third phase o f the PACV. Component 5 will support the development o f a specific replicationstrategybymid-term. Criticalrisksandpossible controversial aspects - Risk RiskRating RiskMitipationMeasures Fromoutputs to project M development objective Insufficientparticipationo flocal M hitial site selection included as stakeholders(communities and criteria that the CRDs hadto have CRDs) inparticipatory processto prior involvement withPACV's establish conservation participatory approach, which allows zoneslprotected areas. the GEFProject to buildon a solid existingfoundation. The implementation ofthe detailed project's communication strategy and action planinparticular at locallevel (e.g. throughlocalinformationand contact points) will ensureearly and tailor-made dissemination o fproject information. Lack o fcapacities o fkey M The project design hasbeen chosento stakeholders(including insufficient respondto capacity bottlenecks. It communication andtechnical skills) will support targeted capacity to implement sustainableresource buildingmeasuresunder component 2 use andconservation zone and4. Inaddition, keyservice managementactivities. providers receive support through other projectslprograms. The coastal forum will be usedto address thematic issues, 18 Lack o f fundingto manageand S Zxpectedmanagementarrangements maintaincoastal /marine PASin w i l l bebrought inline with financial resource-constrained environment :apacity (greater involvement o f local :ommunities than central or leconcentrated Government Igencies). Support to policy changes ;hat would allow other sourcesof finance following completiono f sustainablefinancing study. The Project also supportsthe creation o f adaptedlocalmanagement schemes to matchsustainability needs. Fromcomponentto outputs ~ ~ ~~ Component 1: Insufficient incentives to choose M The packageo ftechnologies and sustainableuse-basedactivities or support willhave sufficient incentives sufficiently compensate to ensurepositiveeconomic returns to stakeholders for loss o f access. stakeholders. The participatory approachwill bebasednot only on lessonsinGuineabut from other coastal conservation andcommunity- drivenprojects inneighboring countries. Absence o f legalframework M As part o ftoolbox development, adaptedto identified site implementation decreeswill be managementplans reviewedandwhere appropriate revisions preparedfollowing consultations with localpopulations. Overlapping andill-defined S Thisriskis reducedbyfocusing institutionalmandates. implementation at the decentralized levelandde-emphasizing central services. Inaddition, support i s providedto Government through this project (multi-stakeholder contribution) andUNDP's NCSA project to clarify roles andthe legal fiamework. Component 2: Ministry ofEnvironment (ME) S Support to MEwillbe evaluated on does not have the capacity to an annual basis and adjustedbasedor execute its responsibilities needs andon the results from the capacity assessment. 19 I Component 3 Viable options to replace N Alternatives fiom other countries or destructive behavior are not hewhereinthe Guinea coastal zone available or adaptable. havebeenassessed, tested and adaptedto the particular context with local stakeholdersduringproject preparationto ensure a minimumset o f options is available at project start- UP* Component 4: Inadequateinstitutionalfiamework M Government agencies andservice providers will be trained prior to the start o f capacity buildingactivities in sustainableuseplanningtechniques. The actualwork will be contracted out, while supervision will remaina Government remonsibilitv. Component 5 Complex implementation M PACV hasextensive experiencewith arrangements with multiple working onthe basis o fmonitorable agencies. annual work programs with a large number o f agencies andservice providers. The CNC will also be strengthenedwith a focal point working on these issuesanda regional office will be creatednear the GEFProject interventionsite. Nationalmonitoringand evaluation S A project M&Esystem including systems (DNS, OGM, CNSH-B, indicators and feed-back loops has DNEF, PACV) cannotbe beenjointly reviewedandagreed streamlined andthus miss uponbyPACV, OGM, CNSH-B and integrated data collection and DNEF. Overallresponsibilityfor assessment (poverty-environment certain key data collection activities nexus, MDG) will beintegrated intothe existing institutionalfiamework under the leadership o fthe DNS Overall riskrating S RiskRating-H(HighRisk),S (Substantial sk), M(Modest Ris N(NegligibleorLowRisk) 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 assurancethat funds are used for the purpose intended. The risk o f waste, diversion andmisuse o f funds was assessed as partially high. The overallProject risk fiom a financial managementperspective is therefore considered 20 partially high. Nevertheless, various measures to mitigate these risks have been agreed. The financial management arrangements o f the project are designed to ensure that funds are used for the purpose intended, and timely information i s produced for project management and government oversight, andfacilitate the compliance withIDA fiduciary requirements. As the CFAA recommendations on financial accountability reforms have not fully been implemented yet, the Country Risk i s assessed as partiallyhigh. The table below identifies the key risks that Project management may face in achieving its objectives andprovides a basis for determining how these risks shouldbe addressed. Risk RiskMitigationMeasure Inherent FinancialManagement Risks: M The existingteam has adequate Fundsmaynotbeusedinan experience and audits have not efficient and economical way and shown any quality relatedissues. exclusively for purposesintended Strong internalcontrolprocedures dueto corruptionandpoor have been set up andwill be governance. maintainedthroughout Project implementation. Confusion may arise between GEF M A dedicatedaccountantwill handle andIDAtransactions. Project financialmanagementunder supervision ofthe senior accountant o fthe PACV. Financial Management Control Risks: M Training ofnew accountant is Teething problems mayjeopardize expected to beprovidedbya FM timeliness and accuracy o f financial Consultant before effectiveness. report andthus slow downthe 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 couldbe moderate provided the risk mitigatingmeasures are properly implemented. 6. Loanlcredit conditions and covenants There areno conditions for Boardpresentation. 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, inform andsubstancesatisfactory to the World Bank, the steering committee set upunderthe Recipient's Village Communities Support Program; selected an auditor with qualifications, experience and terms o f reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposeso fProject implementation; e selected, on a competitive basis, a Natural Resource Management Focal Point, with qualifications, experience and terms o f reference satisfactory to the World Bank, for purposeso fProject implementation. The following covenantswould apply to GEF Project implementation: Ministry of Environment will be added as member of the SC within one month &om effectiveness; CNC to bemaintainedat all times; URCBok6 to bemaintainedat alltimes; Safeguardpolicies as defined inthe safeguarddocumentation will be applied at all times; Annual reporting arrangements would follow the same calendar as those detailed inthe PACV financing agreement; Work programs and associatedbudgets and procurement plans will be submitted to IDA on same schedule as detailed inthe PACV financingagreement; Mid-TermReview to becarried out no later thanDecember 2008; and All agreedstudiesfor the Mid-TermReview (technical audit andfinancial audit ofmicro- projects, economic and financial impact analysis, and sustainable financing o f ICZs) will bemade available to IDAno later thanOctober 31,2008. 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 quantifiedinmonetary terms, while on the other hand, the demand- driven nature o f 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 datedApril 29,2005). The recently releasedUNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre report: provides estimates o f the value o f mangrove forests &om regulating services (shoreline protection, water quality UNEP WCMC, ~horeZ~neprotectionand other ecosystemsewicesfrom 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 o f these services per square kilometer may range from US$54,000 to US$900,000, depending on location (population densities and services exploited). Basedonthese data alone, the arrest o f the decline in mangrove forest cover and sustainable use o f ecosystem resources would therefore likely have substantial benefits. 2. Technical For many o f the problems evoked above, technical solutions exist. Solar drylng o f salt or less wood consuming ways of smoking fish exist and have been successfully tested in the coastal zone. Improvedways to increaseyields andmaintainsoil fertility o frice fields have beenknown in many countries and tested in the coastal zone. They are, however, not all suitable to the specifics o f the region or have a need to be adapted to local circumstances. During the preparation process particular attention has been placed on the identification o f appropriate technologies, to prevent the inclusion o fwell-intentioned activities that are likely to fail, The STAP Review focuses on the scientific and technical soundness o f the project and i s presented inAnnex 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 overalltechnical quality ofproject design. 3. Fiduciary Financial management issues (seeAnnex 7): Financial management procedures have been adapted from the manual prepared for the first phase o f 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 o f the GEF Grant. Financial management capacity of the CNC has been evaluated annually during first phase PACV implementation. The overall conclusion o f the assessment is that the current financial management arrangements are satisfactory to meet IDAFMrequirements though the contract for external auditors under the PACV shouldbe extendedto the newoperation. Byeffectiveness, theprojectwill notbeready for report-baseddisbursements.Thus, at the initial stage, transaction-baseddisbursement procedures, as described inthe 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 IDAto determine ifthe Project i s 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 andwill continue duringProject implementation. Procurement Arrangements (seeAnnex 8): Procurement would be handled by the CNC using an adapted version o f 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 o f the CNC has been evaluated annually during the course of first phase PACV implementation. The procurement capacity o f CNSH-B was evaluated during appraisal and found acceptable to the Bank.The Ministries of Planning, Environment and Agriculture andLivestock 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 andwill continue duringProject implementation. Demand-driven micro-projects under the LIFwill beprocuredinaccordancewith the provisions o f paragraph 3.15 o f 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 o f 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 i s critical for the success o f the project andthe 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, villagelcommunitymeetings andworkshops at the project target sites. Project impact studies will retain social indicators, which have been developed with participation o f 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 o f preparation. Inadditionto the communication and environmental and social assessment studies it provides a detailed roadmap to include the various community groups and inparticular the most vulnerable ones. Instead o f having a separate stakeholder plan, the project will ensure that all recommendations o f the above documents will be embedded incomponent implementation and monitored. This will prevent social exclusion and work toward the empowennent o f all groups so as to increasetheir capacity to managethe resources o fthe selectedintervention areas. Interms of social safeguards, OPBP 4.12 relatedto InvoluntaryResettlement was triggered and a Resettlement Process Framework (RPF) has been prepared. An RPF as a mitigation measure 24 was chosen because some o f the protective measures proposed by the project may lead to restrictions in accessing part o f the natural resources by the local communities. The RPF spells out the participatorytools andprocedures that will be used to associate the local communities in the process o f decision makingand inthe management o f the natural resources inthe protected areas. The RPFwas reviewed and cleared bythe Bank and subsequentlydisclosed inthe 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 o f 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 o f income. Hence, no Resettlement Policy Frameworkwas deemednecessaryto beprepared. 5. Environment As part o fpreparation ofthe first phaseo fthe baseprogramonly anenvironmental management plan was prepared, which was in accordance with Bank environmental guidelines at the time. The second phase o f the base-program has a category `B' rating. In fklfillment of the World Bank EnvironmentalAssessment guidelines OPIBPIGP 4.01, and inconformity to the recently adopted national environmental impact assessment legislation, the Borrower has prepared an environmental and social assessment, which hasbeenreviewedbythe Bank. The GEF Project i s likewise classified as a category B project, safeguard screening factor S2. Although the project i s designed to have mainly positive environmental and social impacts, an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) was prepared, cleared by the Bank andmadepublicly available in-country onDecember 8,2005. 6. Safeguard policies Safeguard PoliciesTriggered by the Project Yes N O Environmental Assessment (OPISPIGP 4.01) [XI E l NaturalHabitats (OPIBP 4.04) [XI PestManagement (OP 4.09) [I [I CulturalProperty (OPN 11.03, beingrevisedas OP 4.11) Involuntary Resettlement (OPIBP 4.12) [XI Indigenous Peoples (OD 4.20, beingrevised as OP 4.10) [I Forests (OPIBP 4.36) 1.1 Safety o fDams (OPISP 4.37) [I Projects inDisputedAreas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* [I Projects on International Waterways (OPISP/GP 7.50) [I * By supportingtheproposedproject, theBank does not intend toprejudice thefinal determination of theparties` claimson the disputedareas 25 7. Policy Exceptions andReadiness Nopolicy 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 o f 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 o f preparation. The inventory o f 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: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity Management Project Guinea has a rich endowment o f natural resources (renewable and non-renewable) and its economy i s almost entirely dependent on these. The rural poor are particularly dependent on renewable natural resources and therefore the sustainable management o f those resources. Mineral mining and agriculture represent the most important economic activities, providing employment to about 80 percent of total population. Agriculture i s the dominant activity o f the rural population (65 percent o f employment), while 30 percent o f the rural population i s practicing livestock holding. The importance o f fishing (5 percent o f rural employment) i s reflected in its contribution to the national diet (40 percent o f 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 onthe availability o f flora and fauna species. There are three main sector issues affecting the coastal zone that the GEF Project will seek to address, at least inpart: (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 reservesinterms o f fishery 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 o f the Guinea portion lies in the fact that it contains the widest part o f the continental shelf o f the Guinea Current, reaching 160 km at the north-western border with Guinea Bissau. This part of the coastal zone barely experiences any upwellingfrom 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 o f what is left of the Upper Guineas Forest. Remaining patches o f this forest are found along the West African coast from Guinea to Togo. Guinea's total area under mangroves constitutes one quarter o f West Afkica's total mangrove wetland -stretching from Senegalto northernAngola- the ecological h c t i o n o fwhich i s closely intertwined with that of the upstream (e.g., coastal plateau) and down stream (continental sea shelf) ecosystems. The extreme irregularity o f the mangrove dominated shoreline, harbors a multitude o f 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 o f diversity, productivity and food potential. They are essential for the survival o f several species 27 (e.g., migrating birds) that are globally endangered or threatened, and for species that are economicallyimportant (fish andgame). Ecosystem Diversity: Despite a lower diversity than Asia mangroves (only six species o f mangroves), the West African coast has the best developed and most extensive mangroves in Africa. The most extensive areas are inGuinea and Guinea-Bissau, both o f which were formerly almost entirely fringed with mangroves; although much has been cleared they still have some 200,0007hectares and 100,000 hectaresrespectively. Mangroves are a very important feature of the zone despite extensive logging activities. Despite the importance o f this region for mangroves, relatively few are protected inWest Africa and there is currently no strategy for the protectiono fthe six classified RAMSAR sites along Guinea's coastalzone inplace, Species Diversity: Incomparison with the shores o f East Africa and the western Atlantic, the tropical Atlantic coast o f Afiica has an impoverishedbiota. At the same time, there are relatively high levels of endemism inmany groups. The marine resources play an important role inthe local, national andregional economies. The west coast has an estimated 239 species of reef fish, of which over 70 percent are endemic. The Gulf o f Guinea islands probably have a particularly highlevelof endemism withthe shore fish. The mainlandcoastis visited seasonallybymillions of migratorybirds (especially waders). The various ecosystems o f the countries have not been well studied (besides the mangrove habitats) and biodiversity i s poorly documented. This might explain why the conservation and protection o f Guinea's natural coastal resources has not yet adequately received support by the international community. Potential links between biodiversity conservation and w a l 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 marineresources. This threat has been exacerbatedover the past decadebythe enormous influx o f refugees along Guinea's borders with Sierra Leone and Liberia, as well as by the persistence o fpoverty andlack of alternative sources o fincome among the ruralpopulation. Aside from the worrisome reduction in the volume o f flora and fauna, the equilibrium of the three ecosystems described above is at risk and results in the destruction o f globally important habitats (e.g., nesting and reproduction sites in particular for birds and fisheries stocks). The impact o f these unsustainable exploitations has only been partially assessed: Studies carried out bythe CNSHI3 andIRDon Guinean fisheries stocks indicate areduction o f stocks to one-fiftho f 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 reductioninplant 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 abandonmento fthe practice o fhuntingincertain localities due to a lack o f game, and a reduction, or even disappearance, o f somewild species. The underlyingmultiple and inter-related root causes for these threats are cutting across sectors andcanbe summarizedbythe following categories (not inorder ofpriority): This estimatedvaries by source from200,000 to 280,000 ha. The 200,000 ha is basedon 1997 data. 28 Nationalcontext: 0 Elevatedpoverty level Increasedpopulationpressures 0 Increasedurbanization, especially incoastalzone 0 Weak legislative, policy, institutionaland financial framework Resourceuses: Extensive cropping systems 0 Extensive miningsystems, focusing on surfacemining 0 Uncontrolledwood collection 0 Extensive livestock systems 0 Increasedwater pollutionfrom poorlyplannedeconomic development activities 0 Uncontrolledhawestingo fnative plant species Uncontrolledfishing 0 Uncontrolledhunting (io Sector issue 2: Socio-economic context and ant~ropogenicpressures of Guinea's coastal zone Studies o f coastal population trends over time indicate a spectacular increase o f 292 percent between 1963 and 1996. This populationexplosion i s due to the fact that the coast is traditionally a resource-rich area(agro-pastoralism, minerals, fish) andthat this i s where most o fthe cities are located, including the capital, Conakry. Forty percent of Guinea`s population lives on fifteen percent o f the territory, which leads to a high degree o f exploitation o f the surrounding ecosystems. The phenomenon of immigrationmay continue and leadto a doubling o fpopulation density in 15 years. Insummary, the extraordinary richness o f 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 i s exceeding its capacity for regeneration. Unless current ways o f managing these natural resources change, an irreversible degradation o f 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 andinternational efforts to protect andmaintainsignificant coastal ecosystem inparticular related to Guinea's important mangrove stands (one fourth o f the total inWest Africa). (iio Sector issue 3: Inadequate legal,policy and institutionalframework 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 i s insufficient to cope with the complexity and dynamics o f integrated coastal zone management. The current related legal framework include: the 1987 Environment Code, 1999 Forestry Code, 1990 FinancialandFiscal Regime of CRDs, 1995 Law, establishing Mining Code, 1994 Law, establishing Water Code 1995 Code o f Livestock Farmingand animal products, 1995 Law establishing Code o f Maritime 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 o f 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 mandatesthat are basedon laws andpolicies that differ inmore thanone way. The need to ensure collaboration among these institutions inorder to develop an integrated coastal zone management policy faces several challenges, such as (i) technical, low humanandfinancial capacity ofmanyofthese institutions incoastalresourcemanagement; and (ii) ofeffectivemechanismtocoordinateactivitiesandestablishconsultationamongvarious lack institutions and donor-funded activities whose activities have direct impacts on coastal ecosystems. The weak capacity o f institutions at national and regional level to plan, manage and monitor the area's natural resources and coastal ecosystemsi s a barrier to the effective protection o f coastal biodiversity in Guinea. In addition, the multitude o f line ministries having a stake in coastal management raises the issue of leadership, coordination and cost-effectiveness. The four Ministries most implicated inthe GEF Project are the Ministry o f Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock, the Ministryo fFisheries andthe Ministryo fPlanning, Two issues that affect all government StructuresinGuinea to various degrees are the low salaries and absence of work incentives, leading to inter-institutional conflicts when external source of funding, andlack o fadequateoperating funds. The newly created Ministry o f Environment (October 2004) has the mandate to (i) conceive, develop and coordinate the implementation o f the govemmental policy in the domains of environmental protection, management o f natural resources and overall improvement o f quality o f life, (ii) provide an adequate legal and regulatory framework including sound monitoring and enforcement, (iii) strategies to promote the urban and rural environment, protection o f define 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 MElacks detailedjob descriptions andwork programs, equipment, qualified staff, andbudget. The Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock (MinistGre de I'Agriculture et de I'Elevage, Mi%), through its NationalDirectorate for Forestry and Water (DirectionNationale des Eaux et Fdrets, DNEF), and the Ministryof Environment have a direct role inthe GEF Project as they share mandates over protected areas. Both ministries lack sufficient resources, however, to carry out this mandate, evenfor existingareas. One mainproblemfacing DNEF is controlling widespread theft o fwood for the productiono fcharcoal for urbanmarkets. Similar institutionalproblems plague: Ministry o f Fisheries, where lack o f operating funds render surveillance o f fishing agreements difficult, compounded with an absence o f a monitoring system that takes 30 advantage o f community interests inpreserving artisanal fisheries from outside poachers (industrial or smaller-scalecommercial). 0 Ministryo fPlanningwhich has, likethe MinistryofEnvironment, seenits statuschanged several times from Ministryto that o f an attached structure dependent on the Ministryo f Finance andhas as a result overlapping responsibilities. Results o f a GEF supported and UNDP managed National Capacity Self-Assessment are expected to be made available by mid-termof GEF Project implementation and used to address critical capacity gaps inthe areaofbiodiversity conservation, as they apply to the Coastal Zone. Government Strategy . The Govemment adoptedthe NationalStrategy andAction Planfor BiologicalDiversity in2002. The proposed action for the conservation of biological diversity include: (i) need to the strengthen Government institutions to define policy, collect and analyze information and enforce existing legislation; (ii) reinforcing the fight against poverty; (iii) the participation o f increase local communities in conservation activities; (iv) improve the organizational capacity o f communities to better take into consideration conservation activities; (v); preservation o f fragile or threatened ecosystems o f pronounced global and national interest; (vi) strengthen the land management and landuse planningprocess; (vii) intensify the research, inventory and collection o f varieties o f threatened varieties for their conservation; and (viii) put inplace a framework for preventiono fbio-diversityrelatedrisks. 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 inits coastal zone, as is the case inneighboring Guinea-Bissau with which the coastal zone shares many characteristics. However, six RAhlSAR sites in the coastal zone were designated in 1993 as wetlands o f international importance becauseoftheir uniquebiodiversity. These sites are: Alcatraz Island, Tristao Island, Rio Pongo, Blanche Island, Konkourk and Rio Kapatchez, All these sites are state-owned and officially managedbythe NationalDirectorate for Forestry and Water Resources (Direction ati ion ale des Eaux et For&, DNEF). With the exception o f 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 o f 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 protectionand sustainable use o fits 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 o f 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 localdevelopment. One result was the pre-identification oftwo specific coastalRAMSAR sites for the establishment of a protected area in2003. The area includes the group o f islands "Tristao" (RAMSAR site no. 572) and Alcatraz (RAMSAR site no. 517), with a total area o f 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 o f additional sites are beingcarried out as part o fproject preparation. Criteria used to select the pilot sites supportedby the project Two sites, TristaolAlcatraz Islands and Rio Pongo were pre-selected on the basis o f the following criteria: High globally important biodiversity value for conservation and representativeness for coastal zone ecosystems Highopportunities for transboundary cooperation(inparticular withGuinea-Buissau Highpotentialfor stabilizingresourcebase(highspeciesreproduction potential) High poverty incidence with low socio-economic development, limited national and international action Potential for leveragingresources from other partners Community-willingness to participate Replicabilityo f approach for establishment o fprotected area Presence of local and sub-regional inadequate management activities threatening habitat andspecies Inthe absence ofapolicy or legalframework for MPAsinGuinea, there isno official definition of an MPA available. There are inaddition, many different types o f MPA, varying considerably intheir purpose or objective, size and level of protection, and name and the legislation under which they are established. Given the importance o f the interlinkages between the different ecological zones in the coastal area through a dense hydrological network, greatly improved management o f 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 marineresources, the term integrated conservation zone (ICg is used inthis document, except for where it concerns already established MPAs inother countries. The preferred approach in Guinea is to establish a network or system o f protected areas inthe coastal zone that covers the diversity of distinguishable ecosystem types, thus protecting species byprotectingtheir habitats. A representative system canhelpto: 0 maintainbiodiversity 0 maintainecological processesand systems 0 allow speciesto evolve and functionundisturbed 0 providea safety marginagainst human-induced andnatural disasters 0 provide a solid ecological basefrom which threatened species canrecover. 32 Lessons learned from other countries form the basis for this approach. They include the following: 0 most bioregions are under-represented; 0 manyhabitatstypes areunderrepresented; 0 most areas are too small to beeffective (irrespective o ftheir level o fprotection); e most areas are relativelyisolated from eachother; and 0 most areas are not managedor assessed. In addition, it is clear from experience elsewhere that the areas cannot be suitably protected unless supporting activities are undertaken inthe upstream parts o f the ecosystem as continued poor natural resource useherewill underminethe positive effect o fproject activities downstream andpose a highrisk that the project may not be able to meet its objectives. Functionallinkages between the different parts o f the ecosystem need to be maintained and the health and productivity o f coastal and marine ecosystems and their related biodiversity are to be protected. Inorderto achievethis, theprojectwouldadoptawatershedapproachinwhichsupport activities for local populations are carried out in the watersheds that form part o f a coherent ecosystem with the three RAIvlSAR sites supportedunderthe project. All CRDs covering these watersheds would be covered by the fourth year o f the project. The Government o f Guinea i s 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 nationalcoastal zone planningandresearchlevel 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 o f coastal and marine systems, to maintain ecological process and systems andto 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 Financedby the Bank andor other Agencies GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagement Project Sector issue Project and Project Status Latest Supervision (ISR) ratings addressed Implementation Development progress(IP) objective (DO) Rural and local Village Communities Support H S H S development Program I1 Ruralinfrastructure NationalRuralinfkastructure I1 MU M S Public sector and Secondphaseo fCapacity- pipeline pipeline governance Buildingfor Service Delivery Program Education First phaseo fthe Education for S S AllProgram Energy DecentralizedRuralEnergy S MS Project Fisheries (regional) Strategic Partnership for Fisheries pipeline pipeline inLMEAfrica Naturalresource Community-Based Land Launch expected managemenaand Management (PGCT) inAugust2006 degradation Naturalresource Programmed'Appui 21 la Gestion EU 2000 - management IntCgrCedes Ressources Closingdate: Naturelles des Bassins duNiger et Dec. 31,2005 de la Gambie(AGIR) Regional :Guinea and transboundary areas with Guinea Bissau, Mali and Senegal(EU) Naturalresource PlanRkgionalde Conservation [UCN, WWF, 2004 2008 - management C8tih-e et Marine (PRCM) de FIBA, C I 1'Afrique de 1'Ouest. Regional: Cape Verde, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Senegal (consortium o fNGOs anddonors) Naturalresource Combating LivingResource UNDPrnP1 200412005 - 2009 management Depletionand Coastal Area GEF(US$55.3 Degradationinthe Guinea Current million) throughEcosystem-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 NationalCapacity Needs Self- LJNDPlGEF 2005 - 2007 governance Assessment for Global [US$0.225 Environment Management million) W P ) Naturalresource Creation o f a Guinea-Guinea- GEF proposal management Bissautransboundary park UNDP stage Naturalresource Small-Grants Program UNDPlGEF on-going management (US$5-50,000 per proposal) NaturalResource Integrated Management o fLand UNEPlGEF ongoing Management Degradationthrough Sustainable Small-scale IndustrialUtilization o fMedicinal, Aromatic and Pesticidal Plantsproject M&E Observatoire de la GuinCe AFD, FFEM, 2000 - 0612006 (closing Maritime AFW, date) Universit6 Bordeaux 3 Fisheries Projet d'Appui auDkveloppement AFD, BAD Ongoing de laPkhe Artisanale et Pisciculture (AfDB, AFD) IPDO Ratings: H S =Highly Satisfactory; S = Satisfactory; MS =Moderately Satisfactory; MU =Moderately Unsatisfactory; U=Unsatisfactory; HU=HighlyUnsatisfactory 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 i s the GEF-funded National Capacity Needs Self-Assessment for Global Environment Management (NCSA), a UNDP-assisted review o f national capacity building needs related to globally valued environmental resources, including biodiversity which is expected to start in late 2005. Close collaboration will be assuredthrough the involvement o f the same governmental institutions and in particular by the Ministry of Environment. Similarly, the Integrated Management of Land Degradation through Sustainable Small-Scale Industrial Utilization o f Medicinal, Aromatic and Pesticidal Plants project, a UNEP-assisted West African regionalprogram, involves Guinea and 35 three other countries in an effort to halt land degradation through community-based land and biodiversity preservation andthe development o frelevant 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 andlessonsto be sharedbetweenthe initiatives. Additionally, the project will ensure collaboration with the UNDP/UNEP executed Guinea Current LME project, which spans the entire west coast o f Africa. The focus o f activities in Guinea o fthis UNDPproject will be on conducting a marineproductivity assessment, integrating Guinea into the larger regional Environmental Information Management scheme o f the project, and fisheries assessments, providing clear routes for strong collaboration, butno 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 BiodiversityManagement 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 o fGuinea's protected area in its ntheindividualcomponents, coastal biodiversity for both management, through the mplementation arrangements, and conservation andsustainable establishment o f a stakeholder xaining activities as necessary. development ends inselected management committee. priority areas, witha particular Stabilization of natural resource htegrate lessons learned from emphasis on assisting communities base inareas under cultivation in :omunity activities into the PACV inandaroundthesepriority areasto project watershed target sites by mdmainstreamsuccessful activities. plan, implement andmaintain 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 GEFProject's global (baseline to end of Project) based environmenta~objective is to on the indicators detailed in the strengthen the conservation o f Project Impact Evaluation globally and nationally significant Manual; and habitats and species inGuinea's MEcapable ofguidingproposed Coastal Zone inpriority areas andon-going development encompassing several coastal activities incoastal zone as R A M S A R sites. measured through the technical audits IntermediateResults 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: Managemento fa pilot Formal establishment o f anICZ Year 1-2: assess capacity o f local protected area around Islands o f inTristaolAlcatraz site (85,000 stakeholders (communities as well TristaolAlcatraz incollaboration ha)byyear 3 following mapping, as local andregional government withlocal, regional andnational socio-economic stakeholder authorities and service providers) to stakeholders and international analysis, ecosystem assessment develop ICZmanagement planand partners, based onprinciple o f ICZ andfauna, flora inventories adapt capacity buildingactivities management to empower andbenefit Clearly defined local accordingly. coastal communities. responsibilities over terrestrial and marine ecosystem (resources Year 1-3: assessoperational including species and habitats). performance o fbeneficiary groups Preparatory work completed on and local governments and identify second coastal I C Z around Rio any policy and training gaps. Pongo by end ofproject (30,000 ha) Permanent coastal zone impact monitoring systems for target 37 endo fyear 1. 0 Replicable tool kitto establish, manage and monitor ICZs developed, tested, disseminated andadaptedbylocaland regionai stakeholders byyear 4. Component Two 2: Component Two: Component Two: Enablingenvironment for integrated coastal zone management Objective: Supporting enabling Strengthened capacity o fMEto Year 1-2: assess capacity o fMEat environment for ICZmanagement in develop, approve and enforce central anddeconcentrated levels Guinea policy andregulatory (EWSEA) and take appropriate training and instruments for sustainable institutional measures management ofthe coastal zone. Year 4: assessarrangements for the Detailed proposal o f sustainable adoption andimplementation o fthe financing mechanismfor ICZs financing mechanism including local andregional contributions developed with particular emphasis on financing scheme for ICZs. 0 Permanent informationanddata Year 3: improve quality and hubrelatedto Guinea's coastal accessibility o f information, and zone inplace andwidely used. sustainability ofinstitutional 0 Permanent mechanismfor arrangements for documentation coastal zone coordination and Year 3: irrrprove participation, exchange is operational quality and timeliness o f forum meetings andrecommendations Component Three: Component Three: Component Three: Local Investment Fund Objective: Provide matching grants 60% ofparticipating communities Year 2-4: assessquality o fmicro- to eligible groups inthe pilot CRDs, satisfactorily implement adapted project implementation, execution so they have the means to implement natural resource use activities as andmaintenance andadjust capacity priority activities emphasizing identified intheir local development buildingactivities o fcomponent 4. environmentally sustainable and plans (PDL) and annual investment Year 2 and3: reviseladjust loss o f socially inclusive alternative Plans (PA% access compensatory activities and livelihoods options identified intheir matching grant subsidies based on localdevelopment plans. experience Viable technological alternatives Year 3: update mix o ftechnologies adapted to localcircumstances are based on local constraints and available. experience (financiaYenvironmenta1 returns). Component Four: Component Four: Component Four: Support for Local Capacity Building Objective: Localgovernments are 60%o fproject communities have Year 1-3: assesscapacity and empowered andhave capacity to integrated andprioritizedimproved performance o f local stakeholders satisfactorily integrate sustainable natural resource management (beneficiary groups, local natural resource use intheir local activities intheir local development governments and service providers) development plans. plans; and adjust capacity building activities accordingly. 38 Component Five ComponentFive ComponentFive ProgramManagement, Monitoring and Evaluation The objective o f this component is -80% o fproject activities identified Yr. 1-4: Assess whether capacity to ensure cost-effective, efficient and inannual workplanshavebeen o fCNC, URC andother agencies streamlinedproject implementation satisfactorily completedbyend o f involvedinProject implementation o fthe four other components. -each year andwithinbudget. have is adequatefor project Semi-annual progress reports implementation and associated produced ontime and with reporting. -satisfactory quality. Performance andimpact monitoringreports produced on time andwithsatisfactory quality. 39 0 d I z B 8 0 I 1 1 I I 1 5 E 5 E aE 3 0 0 .5 73 I d a @ o a I m73 d 43* .CI 4 % I I s s s 0 I 00 z z g g 0s 1 W W 00 s 22 g s W z g s z s z s 0 I I I Monitoring& Evaluation (M&E) The overallobjective o fthe project-related M&Eis to ensurebetter planning, targeting, feedbackto relevant stakeholders, andtimely decision-making inorder to improve service delivery. Itwill help to: ---- improvemanagemento fprograms, LIFsub-projects and supporting activities ensure optimum useo f funds andother resources draw lessonsfrom experience so as to improve the relevance, methods andoutcomes improve service delivery inorder to promote active communityparticipation, quality o f subprojects, transparency and accountability with aview to ensurethat resourcesmade available to subprojects - are usedto meet the intendedpurposes strengthen the capacity o f agencies, non-governmental organizations and local communities to - monitor andevaluate improve information sharing systems and enhanceadvocacy for policies, programs andresourcesthat improve the CMBM contribution towards coastal poverty alleviation and sustainable environmental - management improvenational andlocalcapacity for effective data collectiononkeystone 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 respondto project design : Detailedbaseline studies (during preparation) established for all three CRDs at the beginning o f the project on the basis o f previous work done by OGM and o f the complementary studies @NEF, CNSH-B and OGM) that were conducted in the three domains: biodiversity, activity systems and poverty. An evaluation system consisting o f four modules: state of coastal and marine ecosystem(animal and plant biodiversity); rural activity systems evolution; poverty and capacities (according to A. Sen) dashboardand technical follow-up on implementation o f the project. Eachmodule includes a certain number of specific surveys bearing on a common sample ofhouseholdslproduction units. Within the sample, one will distinguish between the householdslproduction units concerned with the GRN operations o f the LIF/PACV and those not concerned. Comparison of evolution o f different indicators and cross-analysis based on multi-theme data will make it possible to characterize the evolutiono f eachtheme on each site, to determine the overall evolution o f the links between poverty reductiodactivity systems dynamics and state o f biodiversity, to determine the pertinence, efficacy and reproductibility of the new approach of sustainable local development and to assess the overall impact o f the project. Ecosystem state evaluation will take place at mid-termand 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 o f the activity systems to the context of each productionunit. They also make it possible to know exactly, what combinations o f 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 o f resourcestaken 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 o f 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 participationindecision-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, andadministrative data. Thiswill leadto two assessments: adescriptive analysis which highlightsthe poverty scales and distribution o f inequalities, establishes a poverty profile, and through comparison o f different CRDs, enhances the factors accounting for poverty. A time analysis which aims at ' Theinternalandexternalevaluationswouldincludebeneficiaryassessments,mid-termandend-term enhancing evolutions on the basis of a comparison o f aggregatesat CRD level. ' AwelldefinedResultsframeworkthatisderivedfromspecificobjectives,outputsandactivitieswith evaluations correspondingindicators ' A participatory M&E strategy for project processes, information requirements, tools and methodologies for data collection, analysis andreportingincluding a comprehensive M&Eplanwith clear roles andresponsibilities as they relate to indicators tracking with respect to data gathering and ' reporting A Project tracking systembaseduponagreedjoint PACV IIandCMBMindicators The GEF Project will ensure that all stakeholders are taking part in monitoring o f project processes according to defined roles andresponsibilities basedon specific outcome andresults 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 LandManagement Project. Outcome Indicators PACV will assess its project management systems and procedures in respect o f 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 gearedtowards meeting the national biodiversity andMDGgoals. InformationTechnology The project will develop and maintainan effective andpartly decentralized MIS that will assist stakeholders inmonitoringproject processesandprocedureseffectivelyandefficiently. Theproject designstrengthensthe abilities o fCRDs to plan, fund, implement andmonitor community empowerment and delivery o f servicesto the poor. Since most o f the activities will be takingplace 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 andwill include the following sub-systems: Community Level aroundtarget sites '' CRDLevel RegionalLevel NationalLevelI CNC 45 A Geographic InformationSystem(GIS) basedM&EsystemhasbeenestablishedbyOGMandis servingas the basis for the expandedPACV M&E system. The Knowledge Dissemination System supports information andresourcesharing andispartofthe Communication Strategybeingimplementedunder component 2. 46 Annex 4: Detailed Project Description GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity ManagementProject The project's overall development objective is to promote rational management o f Guinea's coastal biodiversity for both conservation and sustainabledevelopment 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 o f 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 andimplement an integrated approachto the conservation and sustainableuse o f globally important biologicalresourcesinGuinea's coastalzone. The project's development and global environmental objectives should be viewed within the context o f a longer term effort that: (a) develops and establishes a network o f protected areas incorporating coastal zone RAMSAR sites of highglobal importance in support of Government's biodiversity protection strategy and international commitments; and (b) identifies and implements with communities inthe coastal zone selected strategic activities that would strengthen sustainableuse of the resources contained within these sites and in bufferzones. This wouldprovideprotection to selectedsites of global andnational importance inthe coastal zone. To achieve its objectives, the project will build on and closely collaborate with the PACV, which would constitute a substantial part o fthe baseline program. Other main associatedinstitutions andinitiativesinclude the Ministry o f Fisheries through its National Center for Fisheries Research inBoussoura (Centre ~ u t ~ o n u l des Sciences Halieutiques - Bousssoura, CNSH-B), the Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock through its National Directorate for Forestry and Water (Direction ~ationaZedes Euux et For&, DNEF), the Ministry o f 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 biodiversityissues (PRCM). Timetable: The project has beenjointly prepared with the last year o f the first phase o f the PACV and the full second phase, Implementation will therefore runfrom 2006 -2011. The first phase o f 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 o f protected areas or key habitats o f targeted species. Particular emphasis i s being placed on the involvement of and benefit sharingwith involved and affected local communities. A stakeholder analysis hasbeen conducted for PACV and for the GEF Project to: (i) clearly articulate target populations with relevant project outputs, and (ii) currentinstitutionalarrangementsandtheircapacitytosupportthedevelopmentoftheproject assess alongwith specific areas that require strengthening. Intervention zone: Selection o f initial interventionareas is based on the existing coverage o f the PACV. This will avoid delays causedbybasic capacity buildingexercises and.has as advantage that population are already experienced in 47 the process leading to the establishment o f a local development plan and the implementation o f annual investment programs. Theproject will not intervene everywhere the PACV has apresenceinthe 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 inthose CRDs where the populations' activities directly impact the wetlands and areas o f highbiodiversity value (the watersheds o f the selectedW S A R sites) inMaritime 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. Theproject 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 identifiedhotspotswhere 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 o f these (components 3, 4, 5) will provide incremental support to three o f the four components of the first phase o f the PACV (exception is the Component C. Maintenance and Rehabilitation o f 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 o fthe coastalzone duringpreparation, which identified specific threats to sites o f global biodiversity importance and proposed mitigation actions. These components do not have an equivalent inthe PACV program and go beyond the objectives o f 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 o f Planning, Ministry o f Fisheries and Aquaculture and its research institute CNSH-B, Ministry o f Mining and Geology, Ministry of Environment, Ministry o f Agriculture and Livestock, etc.), decentralized government (CRD) andlocalcommunities. Component 1: Protection and Conservation of Coastal RAMSAR Sites (Total US$1.45 million; GEF Total US$O.9 million) This is the first ofthe two additional components, which does not have an equivalent inPACV. 48 andmarineresource uses (habitat and species) andresponsibilities around the site (islands o f Tristao) based on agreed participatory community-based site management schemes, enhanced community-based surveillance, protection o f nesting and nursery areas, and targeted capacity-building at local level for planning, managementandM&E.Lastly, theprocesswill leadto the development ofa replicabletoolbox for similar processes in other sites in the coastal zone and elsewhere (e.g., Rio Pongo) and a tracking tool for assessingeffectiveness o fICZmanagement. Guinea's coastal zone has been identified as one o f 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 itselfto the creation o f a coastal protected areaas part o f a regionalnetwork initiative(PRCM -see Annex 1andAnnex 18). The Government o f Guineahas selectedthree RAMSAR sites, Tristao andAlcatraz Islands andRio Pongo on the basis o fthe following criteriato be supportedbythis project: highgloballyimportant biodiversityvalue for conservation ofcoastalzone ecosystems highopportunities for transboundary cooperation (inparticular with Guinea-Bissau) highpotential for stabilizing resourcebase(highspeciesreproductionpotential) important povertyincidence with low socio-economic development and limitednational and international action potentialfor leveragingresourcesfrom other partners community-willingness to participate replicabilityof approach for establishment o fprotected area increasingpressurethreatening resourcebalance. 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 inthe sub-region to adapt themto the country and site-specific context. Itwillhave 3 sub-components: 1.1Establishment ofIntegratedConservationZone: This sub-component aims to establish at least one ICZ. During preparation, two biodiversity priority interventionareas, incorporating three separate wetlands recognized under the R A M S A R 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 o f the TristaolAlcatraz ICZ will bring valuable insights and lessons for the preparation o f 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 archipelagoo fthe TristaoJAlcatrazislandsfall underthe Sub-prefecture ofKanfarandeofthe Prefecture ofBoke. The Rio Pongo site falls underthe urban community o fBoffa (Prefecture ofBoffa). 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 inventorylosurface and boundary definition, identificationo f landtenure issues; (ii) assessment ofNRMpractices andtheir socio-economic andenvironmental impact bylocal population andidentificationo fNRMrelated user conflicts"; (iii) assessmentofcost-implicationsofmanagementschemes(initialinvestmentandrunningcosts); (iv) agreement on protected areamanagementinstrument to be used andmodalities (e.g., community- managedreserve, biosphere, national park...); (v) preparation and finalizationo f legal framework for its creation; (vi) development o fparticipatory protected areamanagementplans; (vii) final designation o fthe protected area, and (viii) development ofareplicableoperationaltoolbox 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 PASand to develop an operational toolbox for additional sites (even outside coastal zone), buildingon the ones usedby the PACV I to support CRDs with the development o f 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 andplanningo f integrated local development andprotected area management plans including provision for a consultative forum at local level, Management plans will include specific measuresto protect threatenedhabitats and species o f 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 andto a lesser degree central government andCNC, 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. ConservationZone Management: Based on the results o f sub-component 1.1., this sub-component aims to support the implementation o f the developed ICZ management scheme and provide the CRDs and local communities with the core technical and financial instrumentsto actually launch andrunthe IC2 around TristaolAlcatraz. The scope o f this sub- component will dependmostly on the management scheme identifiedunder 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 o f sub-component 1.1 financial support will include small investments ., lo Collection o f site specific environmental, social, andeconomic datawould employ existing information, databases, updated satellite imagesandrely mainly onrecentinformationgatheredduringpreparation (see Annex 11). l1 A major part ofthis assessmenthas beencompletedduring project preparation.However, the remoteness ofsome ofthese villages will require anup-date andactualization o fthe baselinestudies. The project seeks to take a holistic approachto biodiversity conversation. The buffer zone o f the Tristao protected area would therefore coincide with the watershed o fthe Rio Komponi, which is an integral part of the ecosystemof the protected area. Direct support to communities and CRDs inthe larger watershed of the Rio Komponi, creating a sustainable buffer zone around the protectedarea, wouldbeprovidedunder components3 and4. 50 (info~atio~managemen~meeting facilities and equipment) and operating costs will be provided excluding staffcosts. 1.3. ImpactMonitoring andEvaluation: This sub-component aims to support and strengthenthe existingbut limited coastal zone monitoring efforts mostly for the two identified ICZ sites by the Government. Socio-economic and ecological indicators have been developed, tested andvalidated bytarget site communities with support from OGM duringpreparation. 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, islandeffect (levels ofconnectivity), andmanagementeffectiveness. Keyoubuts andinputs: Site-specific monitoring will be done usinga simplified version o f the WBNWVF Tracking Tool, currently not existing in the country. This sub-component will provide limited financial support to develop such a broader ICZ trackingtool. Baseline studies were carried out inthe respective watersheds around the two selectedCRD sites around the Tristao and Rio Pongo sites during preparation (Tristao: CRDs o f Kanfarande and Mankountan; and Rio Pongo: UrbanCommunity o f Boffa). Additional baseline studies on keystone indicators (e.g., marine turtles, lamantins, fish stocks, sharks) are currently carried out by nationalresearch 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 o f 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, regionalandlocalcoastal andmarineresearchobjectives, development andenvironmental planning andmanagement. Training from experienced service providers such as OGM to Universities, CRDs and other local, regional andnational stakeholderswill cover participatory datacollectionmethods, interpretation andimplementation o fthe biodiversity monitoringsystem, dissemination activities for preparing local communities, andmethods for accessing and providing information relevant to the monitoring o f protected areas. The site-specific informationwill be fed into the existing geo-referenceddatabase on local ecology, socio-economic dynamics andhumanactivities 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 o f the GEF Project's communication andknowledge strategyunder component 2.2. Component 2: Enabling Environment for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (Total US$O.9 million; GEFTotal US$0.7 million) This is the secondadditional component, which doesnot have an equivalent inPACV. l3Site-based stakeholder analysis, legal and institutional framework assessmentand biodiversity inventory. 51 The weak capacity o f 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 o f coastal biodiversity inGuinea. Inaddition, the multitudeoflineministries havinga stakeincoastalmanagement raisesthe issue o f leadership, coordination and cost-effectiveness. Results of the GEF national capacity assessment will be made available bymid-term andusedto addresscritical gaps inthe areao fbiodiversityconservation. The component will have 2 sub-components: 2.1. InstitutionalStrengthening: Under this sub-component, two sets o f activities would be executed: (i) study to identify options for a financial sustainability o f coastal protected areas, reviewing national budget for environmental expenditures andproposing funding options includingcontribution at local, regional andnational level. This set o f studies will explore different options to ensure financial sustainability for the conservation o f coastal biodiversity andits protected areas, includingbut not limited to the establishment of an environmental trust fund. It will also investigate local levelpartnerships with financial and development agents for continued implementation o fproductive activities that combine conservation with socio-economic use o f the 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 o f 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) andfalls underthe MinistryofEnvironment. 2.2. CoastalZone KnowledgeandCommunication: This sub-component is concerned with the existing knowledge and communication gaps at sub-regional, national, and local level. Ittherefore aims to increase and strengthencoordination efforts between concerned stakeholders by piggy-backing on existing efforts supported by national, sub-regional and international bodies. At the sub-regional levelthe project would support Government's collaboration effortswithother 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 successfulmodels for coastal zone conservation andmanagement. 52 The GEF Project will further support the establishment o f 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 o f the coastal zone and to make this information available to decision-makers. The GEF Project will provide further support for the strengthening o f a multimedia library o f coastal documentation, currently hosted and managedby OGM14, which will serve as a repository of data collected from a variety o f sources as part o f project preparation and implementation. Key information would be placed on the internet as needed and the provision o f access to such information for main institutional and non-institutional stakeholderswould 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 o finformation. Informationcopied onto CDs or DVDswill also bemade available. A detailedcommunication strategy andactionplanhasbeendeveloped duringpreparation 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 o f lessons learned and development o f areplicationstrategy bymid-term. The sub-component will fall under the leadership o f the Ministry o f Planning (National Directorate for Programming and Public Investments, Direction Nationale de la Programation et des Investissements Publics). Component 3: LocalInvestment Fund&IF) (Total US$10.23 million; GEFTotal US$1.60 million) The LIF component o f the PACV aims to stimulate local development and to empower localpopulations. 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 NRMbased micro-projects. The PACV LIF I1 has four windows: (i) Socio-economic infrastructures, (ii) Income- generating activities o f rural producer associations, (iii) activities o f rural producer associations, and (iv) NRMactivities. l4Duringpreparation, aninventoryofallprojectcontextrelated documents, maps, lawsandpolicies including its current location has been funded. 53 For all activities the LIF contributes 80 percent o f the costs with communities contributingthe remainder in in-kind(15 percent) andcashcontributions (5 percent). The PACV LIFhasthe following characteristicswhichwill fully apply to the GEFProject: e participatory identificationandselection ofmicro-projects; e transparent managemento fresources; e localcontrol of all construction performedunder contract; e localresponsibility for maintenance; e lack o fother funding for these activities; and 0 clearly identifiedbenefits. 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. Procedureswill be transparent so that for communities there i s only one LIF (details defined in LIFmanual). The project would provide financial resources for the populations inthe CRDs covering the watersheds that form an integrated part o f the ecological system culminating inthe 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 o f habitats 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 executedbybeneficiary groups who will championthe 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 selectedRAMSAR sites (Tristao, Alcatraz islands for the first site, Rio Pongo for the second) for the planning, implementation and evaluation o f 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 i s funding, so much emphasis will be placed on doing it right in a limited geographic area, rather thandispersing activities. The incremental envelope per CRD is estimated at US$25,000 (baseproject has an envelope o fUS$50,000). An additional amount o f US$lOO,OOO per mum would be available for activities related to improved conservation o f the ICZs. This would also include compensation of changes access to these sites through alternative livelihood focused micro-projects. The proposed activities o f the project are in line with those proposed inthe OP2 guidelines. Infact, the project activities and micro-projects fall into the two categories describedbelow: 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 proposedprotected area; strengthening capacity buildingefforts that promote the preservationand maintenance o f indigenous and local communities' knowledge, innovation, and practices relevant to the sustainable use o f 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 protectionandconservationactivities: 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-termcost recoverymechanisms andfinancial incentives for sustainableuse. Strengthening, expanding, and consolidating conservation areas; assessingthe impact o fnatural disturbances and the compound effect of anthropogenic stress; demonstrating and applying techniques to conserve biodiversity important to agriculture; supporting capacity buildingefforts that promote the preservation and maintenance o f indigenous and local communities' knowledge, innovation and practices relevant to conservation o fbiological diversitywith their prior informedconsent andparticipation. A preliminary assessment led to the following types of community micro projects eligible for GEF co- financing inPACV I1(window 3) inGEF Project target sites Investment relatedmicro-proiectslactivities: e LandandWatershed restoration e Promotion o f reforestation and use of fuel efficient technologies for activities that currently account for a highdemand on mangrove wood (salt making, smoked fish, energy efficient stoves) e Rehabilitation of soils and vegetation (dissemination o f seeds andor possibilities for establishing nurseries) e Protection o friver banks and slopes e Management o fWatersheds e Maintenance andor recovery o friparianvegetation. e Erosioncontrol activity (reforestation, terracing, drainage canals) e Protection o fmarginal lands against cultivationwith annual crops e Mangrove forest management e Lowlands management e Fishmanagement a Conservation o fkeystone species (turtles, manatee, monkeys ...) Non-investment relatedmicro-proiectslactivities: e Community-participatory awareness raising and information activities (e.g., introduction o f new educational programs for schools) Community workshops on sustainable management o f natural resource and resolution o f resource conflicts e Promotiono findigenous knowledge for biodiversity 55 Income-generating micro-proiectslactivities Project support to this PACV I1LIF fbnding window would provide additional resources for the following types o f subprojects or micro-projects aimingto promote alternative livelihood strategieso flocalpopulations that live from unsustainable exploitation o fnatural resources (fisheries, hunting, charcoal making, etc.).: 0 Development o f small-scale community-based eco-tourism facilities 0 Development o f small-scale harvesting facilities for medicinalplants 0 Productiono fartisanalproducts 0 Use o f alternative agricultural technologies, and testing their environmental and economic sustainability and whether they improve income o f local population as well as the ecological and economic sustainability o fproductionsystems. GEF cannot finance activities related to, inter alia, introduction of alien species, forest plantations or monoculture, or establishment o f agricultural systems that movecommunities to marginal lands. The project will use the experience gained under the EUfunded 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 inareas that crosspoliticalboundaries. Component 4: Support for Local Capacity Building (Total US$7.55 million; GEF Total US$l.O million) The objective o f this PACV component i s 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 inthe coastal zone to develop andmanage environmentally sustainablelocaldevelopment programs, with emphasis onbiodiversity 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 O s , change agents and communities inthe target watersheds for training and tools to assist them indevising sustainable landmanagement plans that specifically include biodiversityprotection and sustainable use. Inaddition, it will support and encourage community organization andthe formation of associations (e.g., artisanal fishery associations). The project will pay particular attention that land management plans o f the different communitieslCRDs form a coherent framework basedon constraints and threats elsewhere inthe watershed andaddresskeyenvironmental project priorities. Inaddition, itwillverify whether proposedactivities do not have an adverseimpact downstream. Capacity buildingactivities supported under the project include: Training andorganization of localproject beneficiaries so that they canparticipate inthe (component 1, 2 and 3) process and be conscious o f and fully understand the situationwith which they live and the consequenceso fdifferent actions on the environment andtheir longer-term livelihoods; Organization o f field visits to show the interaction of different activities in the watershed on the natural resourcebase; Capacity-building o fbeneficiary groups to identify, implement, monitor and evaluate activities under the LIF; Development o f technical capacity related to conservation o f the environment and sustainable development, ininstitutions involvedinproject execution andmanagement; Training o f local and regional decision makers (CRDs, Prefectures) and opinion leaders on the benefits o f the sustainable use o fnatural resources and techniques for preservation and conservation; and Institutional strengthening o f existing structures in order to reorient it towards sustainable environmental management Dissemination o ftranslated legaldocuments 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 andrefined. Component 5: Project Management, Monitoring and Evaluation (Total US$3.40 million; GEFTotal US$0.8 million) Qbiective: to emure cost-effective, efficient and streamlined project implementation of the four other components. Target muv:CNC, SC, CTE Kevinput: Technical assistance, incremental operating costs andequipment Keyoutvut: SuccessfMimplementation andmonitoring& evaluationoftheproject. The GEFProject wouldprovide incremental fundingto support the operational structures o fPACV, 57 5.1. Project Management: Overall management and coordination o f 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 o f the PACV Iwill be appropriately strengthenedby the project with the addition o f (i) an accountant, (ii)procurement specialist, (iii)part- a a time GIS/M&E specialist and (iv) a NRM specialist. The latter will be most likely based at the Regional Coordination Unit(RCU) inBok6 (to be created in2006) to support implementation on the ground and assist the local team based on the Tristao islands with the process o f creating an ICZ. Such a decentralized technical support will also be in line with results o f 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 o f working together in the project intervention sites. The project would provide additional equipment and vehicles, and incremental operating funds, to each ofthe two agenciesto assist them inexecuting their responsibilities under the project. (ii) The new Ministry o f Environmentresponsible 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 MinistryofPlanninghas beendesignatedas responsible entity for the secondsub-component of component 2 based on its role to coordinate donor interventions, to oversee national, regional and local development initiatives andto host the coastal fonun. (iv) The CNC will oversee implementation o f component 3,4 and 5. Inaddition to the incrementalstaffmentioned above, CNC willreceive fundingfor avehicle andequipment, andincremental 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 o f Boffa, CRDs o f Kanfarandt and Mankoutan) and led to the definition o f 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 o f a replication strategy by mid-term to provide up-scaling duringthe final phase o fthe PACV. 58 Annex 5: Project Costs GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity ManagementProject ProjectCost ByComponent andor Activity Local Foreign Total U S $million U S $million U S $million ProtectionandconservationofcoastalRAMSAR sites 0.55 0.35 0.90 Enablingenvironment for integratedcoastalzone 0.35 0.35 0.70 management LocalInvestmentFund 1.60 0.00 1.60 Support for Local CapacityBuilding 0.80 0.20 1.00 ProjectManagement, Monitoring andEvaluation 0.60 0.20 0.80 Total Project Costs' 3.90 1.10 5.00 Government: (in-kind: salaries and 0.35 0.20 0.55 1.10 1 facilities) I Rural communities (in-kindand 1.63 1.63 cash) IDA and IFAD I 1 7.00 6.00 1 2.60 15.60 PACVIand II PRCMI 0.20 Guinea I I I 0.20 GEF 0.90 0.70 I.60 Total 1.45 0.90 10.23 Numbersmaynot addup dueto rounding. 59 Annex 6: ImplementationArrangements GUINEA: CoastalMarineandBiodiversityManagementProject Project oversight and orientation will be the responsibility o f a Steering Committee (SC) composed of representatives o f the 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 inthe area o f decentralized rural development. The secondmeetingreviews progress inthe agreed annual work program. The SC's present composition is as follows: e a representative from the Ministryo f Interior andDecentralization, who serves as the SC's president; e two representatives from the Ministry o fPlanningandthe Ministryo f Agriculture andLivestock, one o fwhom i s the SC's vice-president; . 0 one representative each from the Ministryo fFinance, Education,Public Health, Public Works and Fisheries andAquaculture; 0 three representatives fiom civil society (NGOs andother privateinstitutions); e sevenrepresentativesof CRD presidents, one from eacho fthe seven administrative regions. One representative from the Ministryo fEnvironment will be addedto the SC. The overall management and coordination o f the GEF Project will be entrusted to the Project Coordinating Unit(CNC) ofthe PACV, attachedto the MinistryofPlanning.This is a lightweight structure with most of the day-to-day management of project activities executed by line ministries. Its main focus i s 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 o f the LIF.Duringthe first year o f 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 o f the LIF. The Project i s assisted at the CRD level by Community Development Agents. The URC and Community Development Agents monitor LIFactivities and ensurethe correct use of LIFfunds.Theywillhavenopowerto rejectorchangemicro-projects proposedbythe CRDs, unlesstheydo not conform to the agreed criteria o f the FIL and or do not conform to the approved Local Development Plan. To facilitate the programming,coordination and monitoringof PACV operations, the CNC has establisheda Management Committee (Comite' technique d'exe'cution) composed of managers o f the various components, which convenes monthly to review the progress o f the project, ensure complementarity and an efficient coordination o f the activities of the different project components, and consolidate programs, budgets, as well as quarterly and annualprogressreports. The CNC acts as secretariat of the Steering Committee and prepares documents commensurate with its functions. The CNC is in charge o f preparing consolidated biannual activity programs and related annual budgetproposals. These arebasedonthe annual programs andbudgets preparedbythe 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 submittedto 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). Inaddition, PACV will receive funding for two vehicles, office equipment, and incremental operating costs. Except for the focal point inBokC, the additional staff will not be funded by this Project, but will be funded through the related Community-Based LandManagement Project. CNSH-B will implement the first component o f the project as part o f its core activities (lead agency for Isles Tristao andAlcatraz sites) incollaboration withDNEF(lead agency for Rio Pongo site). Bothagencies have strong technical capacities and have a long history o f working together inthe 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 evaluatedby the Bank, all fiduciary responsibilities will behandledbythe CNC. It is unclear at the moment what the technical capacity is o f ME. A minimal program will therefore be established annually until the results o f the capacity assessment carried out by UNDP are known. The Ministryof Environmentwillnotmanageanyfunds directly. The Ministry o f 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 assignedactivities. MP will not manage any funds directly. The CRDs willberesponsible for implementation o fthe microprojects qualifylng for LIFfinancing along the following principles: (i)identification, selection, operation, oversight andmaintenance, by andfor the benefit of village communities; (ii) contractual implementation o f works by local artisans, private enterprises, or by the communitieslformally recognized groups themselves; (iii) responsibility for technical supervision and monitoring o f 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 of the Project, additional CommunityDevelopment Agents will be added on the Islands o f Tristao (2 additional Agents per district). The CRD Council (Conseil Communautaire) will decide annually on micro-projects to receive funding from amongthe priorityprojects proposedto the CRD by the communities, andingeneral 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 inproviding support for the local micro-project process, from a ~ ~ ~ a tthrough project execution. Helshe will combine technical and facilitation skills andwill be a i u n 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 o f the infrastructure established will be strengthened, and the meanslorganizational arrangementsto take onthe 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, andthe 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 deconcentratedpersonnel to discuss decentralization issues as well as the rights andresponsibilities o f all stakeholders at the local level. FinancialSystem and Audit SeeAnnex 7. Monitoring and Evaluation The objective o f the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is to respond to the internal management and supervision needs o f all the project's stakeholders, including the executing agencies responsible for implementingthe different project components, andCRDs for the micro projects. PACV's monitoring system is already organized as a network with each executing agency in charge o f monitoring its own activities. The M&E unit i s incharge 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) preparingconsolidated quarterly implementation reports for the overallproject. Progress reports will be submitted to the Bank twice a year. Each executing agency will be required to submit abiannualprogress report for its component to the PCUno later thanonemonthfollowing the endof each semester. The national M&E specialist will incorporate these individual reports into a consolidated progress report for the entire project. Independent performance evaluations o f the Project will be conducted twice: a mid-term review and an evaluation at the end. These evaluations will be conductedjointly by the Government o f Guinea and the co- financiers o f the project. These reviews will be based in part on the results and recommendations o f the evaluations indicated above and will help make adjustments resulting in a more efficient implementation of the project. The reviews will coincide with those o fthe secondphase ofthe PACV. 62 Annex 7: Financial Management and Disbursement Arrangements GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagement Project The Project will use PACV's existing financial and disbursement arrangements. These have been evaluated duringPACV implementation andfoundto be satisfactory. Summary of FinancialManagementAssessment ImplementingEntityhtaffing 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 o f the Project. Inaddition, 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 managedthe PACV. RiskanalysislRisk assessments: see SectionC.5 ofthe maintext. Strength and Weaknesses: Strength:the Project will benefit from the satisfactory FMcapacity o fthe PACV, Weaknesses:risk o fconfusion o ftransactions relatedto IDA and GEF operations, Information Systems: The existing computerized FM Systems will be revised and reflected accordingly in the manual o f procedures. FinancialReporting 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 o f the following: (i) A Statement of Sources andUses of funds (by Credit Categoryiby Activity showing IDA and Counterpart Funds separately); (ii) A Statement o f 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 o f Sources and Uses of funds; (iv) SOE Withdrawal Schedule listing individual withdrawal applications relating to disbursementsby the SOEMethod, byreference number, date and amount; (v) Notes to the FinancialStatements. Accounts andAnnual Audits Detailed procedures have been developed for project accounting for each component. The objective o f the detailed procedures i s 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 o f the Project Implementation Manual and are satisfactory for providing reasonable assurances that accounts are properly recorded andresources 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 quarterlyfinancial reports with supporting documentation to the CNC. Similarly, the Ministry for Decentralization, in charge o f the first component will provide quarterly reports to the CNC. The CNC will subsequently consolidate the financial reports o fthe operational components. The annual financial statements o f the project will be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Guinea and with FARAH, which has been acceptedby IDA for projects in Guinea. The financial statements will include at least a statement o f sources and uses o f funds, a statement o f reconciliation o f the special accounts, a balance sheet and required notes to the financial statements. The audited financial statements will be submittedto IDAno later thansix months after the endo fthe 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 o f the existing contract o f the PACV external auditor to cover the GEF Project will be a condition o f 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 eachyear. 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 o f 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 o fpriceshids, etc.). Where funds are inappropriately utilized, the Project will cease supporting activities untilall funds have been accounted for. Incaseswhere fraudissuspected, localauthorities will benotified. Workprograms 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 inthe course ofthe year regardingimprovedaccess andqualityof 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 programswill bepresentedto IDA andtheir approval i s a condition o fannual disbursements. No later thanNovember 30 o f each 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 andbrokendownbyimplementingpartner.The report format will detailactivities, associatedunitcosts and 64 animplementationtimetable. Itwill also include monitorable progressindicators for eachactivity proposed inthe work program. Thework program andbudgets will bereviewedbythe NCUprior to submission to IDAfor no-objection. In addition, the CNC will submit semi-annual progress reports to the SC showing budgeted and actual expenditures, source o f funds used, statements o f progress achieved on the basis o f the agreed upon indicators andthe (revised) objectives andfinancial 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 aperiod of five years, from October 1,2006 till December 31, 2011.The grant closing date has been set at six months after the expected date for completion o f project activities (June 30, 201l),allow for the orderly processing of final disbursement requests andthe production o f the project's to final audit and annual progress reports. Table: Disbursements DisbursementCategories AllocatedAmount Disbursementpercentages ~~ (US$) 1. Vehicles andEquipment 400,000 100% o f foreign and 80% o f local expenditures 2. CivilWorks 50,000 100%o f foreign and 80% o f localexpenditures 3. Consultants' Services 1,000,000 100%o fforeign and 80%o f localexpenditures 4. Training andworkshops 500,000 100% 5. Matching Grants 1,600,000 100%o f amounts 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 o f taxes, i s sought for this Project once the CFP has been approved bythe Board. MethodofDisbursement 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 o f the DesignatedAccount. Where the reports are adequate and produced on a timely basis, and the borrower requests conversion to report-based disbursements, a review will be undertakenby the IDAto determine ifthe project i s eligible for this method. The adoption of report-based disbursements by the project will enable it to move away from 65 transaction-baseddisbursementmethodto InterimunauditedFinancialReports (IFR) baseddisbursementsto the Project's DesignatedAccount, basedon IFRs. Use of statements of expenditures (SOEs): Disbursements for all expenditures will be made against full documentation, except for items claimed under the Statement o f 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 requestedby IDA periodic supervision missions and project external auditors. All disbursements are subject to the conditions o f the Development Credit Agreement andthe procedures defined inthe DisbursementLetter. Designated account: The CNC will maintainone DesignatedAccount inU S Dollars with respective equivalent incurrent account inGuineanFrancswhich willbemanagedbyCNC. Fundswillbeusedto makepaymentsto suppliers inthe respective contract currencies. The DesignatedAccount inUS dollars withrespective equivalent inlocalcurrency current account wouldbe 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 o f 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 DesignatedAccount will be used for all payments inferior to twenty percent o f the authorized allocation andreplenishment applications will be submitted monthly. Further deposits by the Bank into the Designated Account will bemade againstwithdrawal applications supportedby appropriate documents. D. NEXTSTEPS Action Plan Theaction plan to be implemented before Credit Egectivenessis tabulated below. Action Target 1. Extendthe contract ofthe existingexternal auditors to the ByEffectiveness new Operation 66 FinancialCovenants A financial management system, including records and accounts will be maintained by the CNC. Financial Statements will beprepared ina format acceptableto IDA, andwill be adequateto reflect inaccordancewith sound accounting practices the operations, resourcesandexpenditures inrespect o fthe project. Supervision Plan Supervision activities will include: review o f quarterly IFRs; review o f annual audited financial statements andmanagement letter as well as timely follow up of issues arising; andparticipationinproject supervision missions as appropriate. The Bank FMS in charge will play a key role in monitoring the timely implementation o fthe financial managementarrangements. 67 Annex 8: Procurement Arrangements GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity Management Project A. General Procurement for the proposed project would be carried out in accordance with the World Bank's "Guidelines: Procurement under IBRDLoans andIDA Credits" dated May 2004; and "Guidelines: Selection andEmployment of Consultants by World BankBorrowers" dated May 2004, andthe provisions stipulated inthe Grant Agreement. The various items under different expenditure categories are described ingeneral 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, andtime frame are agreed between the Borrower and the Bank in the Procurement Plan. The Procurement Plan will be updated at least annually or as requiredto reflect the actual project implementation needs and improvements ininstitutionalcapacity. 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 o f either ICB or NCB guidelines. Procurement o f small works by communities would follow procedures detailed inthe 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 thanUS$200,000 and Shopping for locally available goods costing less thanUS$50,000 per contract. Procurement will be done using the Bank's Standard Bidding Documents (SBD) for all ICB andNCB, satisfactory to the Bank.Inexceptional cases procurement from IAPSOcouldbeusedfor vehicles andoffice equipment. Procurement ofgoods by communities would follow procedures detailed inthe h c a l Investment Manual. Other Methods o f Procurement o f 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 Planshall specify the circumstances underwhich suchmethods maybe used: I Procurement Method I (a) Shopping (b) Procurement fromUnitedNationsagencies 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 andworkshops. 68 Short lists o f consultants for services estimated to cost less than $200,000 equivalent per contract may be composed entirely o f national consultants in accordance with the provisions o f paragraph 2.7 o f the Consultant Guidelines. Operating Costs: Operating costs will be packaged as feasible and procured either through shopping (where packagingi s feasible) or direct purchase(for consumables) to be documentedthroughinvoices. Others:The following table specifies methods ofprocurement, other thanQuality andCost-based Selection, which may be used for consultants' services. The Procurement Plan shall specify the circumstances under which suchmethods may beused. 1 Procurement Method I (a) I 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 eachprocurement method, as well as model contracts for works and goods procured, are presented in the detailed GEF Project Administrative and Financial Manual, which hasbeenreviewedaspart ofpreparation andis 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) eachcontract for goods or works estimatedto cost the equivalent o f $200,000 or moreprocured on the basis o f International Competitive Bidding, Limited International Bidding or National Competitive Bidding, or Direct Contracting; (b) Consultancy services estimated to cost above US$lOO,OOO (firms) or US$50,000 (individuals) per contract andall single source selection ofconsultants (firms or individuals). All other contracts shall be subject to Post Review bythe World Bank. B. Assessment ofthe agency's capacityto implementprocurement Initially, all procurement activities will be carried out by the CNC. An assessment o f the capacity o f the CNC to implement procurement actions for the GEF Project was been carried out by Mathieu MCguhC as part of appraisal inMay 2006. The assessment reviewed the organizational structure for implementing the GEFProject andthe PACV. The assessment supportedthe recruitment o f aprocurement assistant to assist in handlingthe increasedworkload fiom the implementationo fthe GEFProject. The only other issueidentified was the needto addoffice space to house the procurement assistant.No further issueswere identified. The overallproject risk from procurement is low. C. ProcurementPlan The Recipient submitted a procurement plan during appraisal for project implementation, which was fmalized duringnegotiations. This planprovides the basis for the selectedprocurement methods. Itwill 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 institutionalcapacity. D. FrequencyofProcurement Supervision Inadditionto the prior review supervisiontobecarriedout fromBankoffices, the capacity assessmentofthe Implementing Agency has recommended annual supervision missions to carry out post review o f procurement actions. E. Detailsofthe ProcurementArrangements InvolvingInternationalCompetition 1. Goods, Works, andNonConsultingServices (a) List ofcontract packagesto be procured following ICB anddirect contracting: I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 1 5 1 6 7 8 9 Ref. Contract Estimated Procurement P-Q Domestic Review Expected Comments No. (Description) Cost Method Preference byBank Bid- (yeslno) (Prior IPost) Opening Date 3 5 four wheel US$236,000 ICB Post No Prior 08130106 (b) ICB contracts estimatedto cost aboveUS$200,000per contract andall direct contracting willbe subject to prior review bythe Bank. 2. Consulting Services (a) List ofconsulting assignments with short-list o finternational 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 Ministryof Environment staff in Environmental 1 Impact Assessments 3 1 Training of 10 US$54,500 QBS Post 09105106 Environment staff in biodiversity 70 (b) Short lists composedentirelyofnational consultants: Shortlists ofconsultants for services estimatedto cost lessthanUS$200,000 equivalent per contract, maybe composedentirelyofnationalconsultants in accordancewiththe provisions ofparagraph2.7 ofthe Consultant Guidelines. 71 Annex 9: Economic and FinancialAnalysis GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagementProject Like the PACV, the GEF Project does not lend itselfto classic quantitative cost-benefit analysis becauseon one hand, the expected capacity building benefits have undetermined life expectancies and cannot be quantified inmonetary terms, while on the other hand, the demand-driven nature o f investments also leaves the specific investments that will be made under the GEF Project undetermined. Not enough is known about investment attitudes o f the rural communities to attempt a simulation exercise. However, it i s possible to demonstrate in qualitative terms that economic and social returns are likely from the capacity buildingand the LIF components, A more detailed analysis i s presented in Annex 9. The analysis follows recommendations adopted by the GEF on cost-effectiveness analysis (see also Council Document GEFIC.25111 datedApril 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 shouldberated as havingchosenthe most cost-effective solution for Component 1. Inaddition, the recently releasedUNEPWorld ConservationMonitoring Centrereport,15provides estimates o f 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 traditionalmedicines). Unfortunately, most o fthe datapresentedinthe study draws on data from South Asia andthe Caribbean, where higherpopulationandinfrastructure densities andtourismplay animportant rolein the valuation o f the services function of the mangrove forests. Data, even though not fully applicable do, however, illustrate the relative importance o f mangroves. Based on the UNElP analysis, the accumulated value o f 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 o f remaining mangroves forests at 55 cubic meters of fuelwood andpoles per ha. The erosion control value o f mangroves is estimated at the lowest end at several thousand dollars per year and per linear kilometer. Based on these data alone, the arrest o f the decline in mangrove forest cover and sustainable use of ecosystem resources would therefore likelyhave substantial benefits, especially inthe 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 havingto resort to fertilizers or pesticides. This new technique (new for Guinea, applied inGuinea-Bissau and southern Senegal for generations), has as an addedadvantagethat it greatly reducesthe need for shiftingcultivations. The GEF Project would support the expansion o f this technique to other areas along the coastal zone, depending on the local participatory diagnostic. Benefits and Cost-effectiveness of Capacity Building: The capacity buildingactivities supported by the GEF Project are most likely to generate substantial economic benefits. Decentralization, sustainable resource use planningandhumancapacity buildingwill improve the economic decision-making process. The promotion l5UNEPWCMC, Shorelineprotection andother ecosystem sewicesfiom mangroves and coral reefs, UNEP-WCMCAJNEP 2006, 72 o f sustainable resource use decision-making i s also likely to increase the public benefits o f the Project. In studies for other countries, returns to humancapacity building are significant, especially when there i s 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 inthis case. However, many eligible types o f investments are predetermined and are known to generate significant economic benefits. Previous experience suggests that rural communities usually select projects with very high rates o f 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 o fthe various types of eligible micro-projects will bereviewed. Experience of the PACV and Bank executed projects elsewhere also suggest that communities execute investments on averageabout 15-45 percent more efficiently thanGovernment agencies. For those investments where benefits are uncertain an analysis o f the fmancial soundness o f proposed activities will be undertaken for all investments identified in the Local Development Plan prior to funding the activity, so as to maximizechanceso fsustainability. Inaddition, the GEFProject is expectedto generateexternal benefits fkom activities that will mostly accrue to other parts o f the (sub-) watershed, such as improvedwater quality andwater flow through erosion control activities. 73 Annex 10: Safeguard Policy Issues GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity Management Project Safeguard PoliciesTriggered by the Project Yes N o EnvironnientalAssessment (OPIBPIGP 4.01) [XI [I _ _ NaturalHabitats (OPIBP 4.04) 11 PestManagement ( O M [xi1 [XI CulturalProperty (OPN 11.03, beingrevised as OP 4.11) [I [XI InvoluntaryResettlement (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 inDisputedAreas (OPIBPIGP 7.60)* [XI Projects on International Waterways (OPIBPIGP 7.50) E[Il [XI The GEF Project's overall development objective i s to promote rational management o f 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 maintainenvironmentally sustainableandsocially inclusive alternative livelihoodsoptions. 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 biologicalresourcesinGuinea's coastal zone. The GEFProject's development and global environmental objectives shouldbe viewed within the context o f a longer term effort that: (a) develops and establishesa network o fprotected areas incorporatingcoastal zone RAMSAR sites of highglobal importance in support of Government's biodiversity protection strategy and existing international commitments; and(b) identifies, tests, and implements with communities inthe 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 inthe coastal zone. The performance and impact of the project will be assessed through the following outcome indicators (see also h e x 3) and are inline with GEF indicators defined for its Biodiversity Strategic Priorities 1and 2: * By supporting theproposedproject,the Bank doesnot intend toprejudice thefinal determinationof theparties' claims on the disputedareas 74 OP4.01 Social and Environmental Impact, OP4.04 on Natural Habitats and OP4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement Inspiteofthe expectedsocialandenvironmentalbenefits, OP4.01 istriggeredbecausepotentialminor social andenvironmental negative impacts were identifiedaspart ofthe preparation process. Undeterminedmicro- projects will be carried out with GEF Project support. The individual as well as aggregate impact o f these activities will need to be monitored. Large-scale impacts such as major landuse change will not be induced by the project. The development of Guinea's coastline and interior is expected whether or not the GEF Project i s implemented. The GEF Project will therefore develop a framework for promoting sustainable development, through a sustainablewatershed management approach, emphasizing the inter-relatedness and interdependency o f the ecosystem. Procedureshave 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 beingused to involve communities. These are: (i) a basic assessmentto obtain information on environmental and social assets and constraints to help evaluate the sustainability andbroader impacts of various development options; (ii) elaboration o f local development plans, which define basic development activities; and (iii) the development of a strategic framework and coordination mechanisms to draw together stakeholdersandsectoral, localandupstream development plans ina coherent strategic vision. The community strategy will be a key tool for creating awareness, for consensus building, for generating participation in processes o f 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 strengthenthe ability o f all stakeholders to articulate and disseminate information, andmake their own informed decisions. This should help communities become full partners in the process o f local and development planning. With the help o f the PACV, this process has already started and surveys have confirmed that communities feel empowered and are playing an increasingly important role inthe development process. The GEF Project will also support other activities and measures focused on the improvement o f the communities' livelihoodand emphasizeparticipationo fidentifiedvulnerable 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 o f local resources), development o fpriority community services andinfrastructure andinvestment activities not supportedbythe PACV. The GEF Project includes a significant component focusing on involving local communities in co- management o f PASand may also support the promotion o f business partnerships to obtain direct concrete benefits from tourism initiativesinthePASandbuffer zones, once the first ICZhasbeen 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 planningfor sustainablemanagementwere used as parto fthe 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 inaccordancewith procedures detailed inthe 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 andprivate sector development incertain areas which could lead to the expansion of mining, deforestation, tourism nodes, and in-migration. These trends are already beingobserved incertaincoastalareas. The challenge will beto ensurethat the GEFProject induces positive change, andencourages sustainabledevelopment. ~aturaZ~abitats- The natural habitat OP is triggeredeven though the project is expectedto have significant positive impact inthe securization o f coastalnatural habitat and forest. Still, with the economic development triggered by the project and, some o f the 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. Inaddition, assessmentswill be carried periodically to evaluate GEF Project environmental and social impact. OPlBP4.12 onInvoluntaryResettlementandLandAcquisition Two major factors have led to the triggering o f OPlBP 4.12. The first factor i s 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 o f loss o f access to resources, and damage to or loss o f 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 i s 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 i s 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 positionwith government authorities. Their design and development provide the opportunity for involvement o fNGOsandother partners inhelpingto empower local communities through various forms of capacity building. Once developed, these plans should become part o f 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 andtheir location duly documented and recorded inthe managementplans. 76 Annex 11: Project Preparation and Supervision GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagement Project ~~ Planned ~~ ~~Acutal PCNreview September25,2000 January29,2004 InitialPID to PIC Initial ISDS to PIC Appraisal June 1,2001 April24,2006 Negotiations May4,2006 Board/RVP approval June 22,2006 Planneddate of effectiveness October 2,2006 Planneddate ofmid-termreview October 31,2009 Plannedclosing date December31,2011 Keyinstitutions responsiblefor preparationofthe project: CNSH-B CNC-PACV Bankstaffandconsultantswho workedonthe project included: Name Title Unit DirkPrevoo TTWOperations Officer AFTS4 Abdoulaye TourC Sr. RuralDevelopment AFTS4 Specialist Bella LeloumaDiallo Sr. Financial Management AFTFM Specialist FranqoisL e Gall LeadLivestock Specialist AFTS3 GabrieleRechbauer Consultant JosefToledano Sr. RuralDevelopment PA9ES Specialist JosephEllong LanguageProgramAssistant AFTS4 KadidiatouBah TeamAssistant AFMGN MathieuMCguhC ProcurementAnalyst AFTPC MohamedArby Ben-Achour Sr. Social Scientist AFTS1 Racky DiaCamara TeamAssistant AFMGN RenCeDesclaux FinanceOfficer LOAG2 SameenaDost Sr. Counsel LEGAF Susan Leloup Consultant Suzanne Piriou-Sal1 Sr. RuralDevelopment AFTS3 Specialist Yves PrCvost Sr. Environmental Specialist AFTS4 ZiC Coulibaly InfrastructureSpecialist AFTU2 77 Bank.funds expendedto dateonprojectpreparation: 1. Bank.resources: US$O 2. Trust funds: US$360,000 3. Total: US$360,000 EstimatedApproval and Supervision costs: 1, Remainingcoststo approval: US$O 2. Estimated annual supervision cost:US$70,000 (BBGEF) 78 Annex 12: Documents inthe Project File GUINEA: CoastalMarineandBiodiversityManagement Project e EvaluationEnviromementale et Sociale duPGCMB e Cadre de gestion duprocessusde rkductiondes impacts sociaux nkgatifs de lalimitation d'acchs aux domainesclasses et aux zones tampon Etudes prkliminaires (Baseline studies) Stratkgie de communication duPGCMB Manuel Systbmede suivi-kvaluation des impacts Inventaire des domkes disponibles sur la GuinCeMaritime Manuel de procbduresadministratives, financihres, comptables et de passationdes marchks Manueld'exkcution duFIL 79 Annex 13: Statement of Loans and Credits GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagement Project Differencebetween expectedandactual OriginalAmount inUS$Millions disbursements F'rojectID FY Purpose IBRD IDA SF GEF Cancel. Undisb. Orig. Frm.Rev'd PO65126 2005 GN-HealthSec SuptSIL(FY05) 0.00 25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.77 2.42 0.00 PO65127 2005 GN-NatlRuralInfrastructure(FY05) 0.00 30.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.26 8.72 0.00 PO42055 2003 GN-GEF DecentrRuralElec (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.15 1.93 0.00 PO73378 2003 GN-Multi-SecalAIDS SIL (FY03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.67 2.03 0.00 PO74288 2003 GN-Decentr RuralElectrification(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 ComSup 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 HeldandDisbursedPortfolio InMillionsofUSDollars 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 Totalportfolio: 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 Approvals PendingCommitment FY Approval Company Loan Equity Quasi Partic. Totalpendingcommitment: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80 Annex 14: Country at a Glance GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversity ManagementProject I so LOw- income Development diamond. PO 81 GN Lteexpectancy GN Average annua Population('Xj 2.2 18 Laborforce (%) 2.1 10 2.1 GNI Gross per primary Most recent estimate (latest year available, lSS8-04) capita nrollment Poverty(%ofpopulationbelownafional~vettyline) M a npopulation(%of totalpopulation) 36 37 31 Lifeexpectancyatbirth(pars) 46 48 58 I Infant mortality(per(000livebitths) 04 131 79 Childmalnutrition(%ofchildrenunder5) 23 44 Access to improvedwatersource Access to animprovedwatersource (%ofpopulation) 51 58 75 Literacy(%ofpopulationage 59 85 81 Grossprimaryenrollment (%ofschool-agepopulation) 81 95 94 -Guinea Male 92 132 131 __Lowincomegroup Female 71 88 88 P S 4 2003 2004 Economic ratios' Trade GrossnationalsavingslG0P Current accountbalancelGOP Domestic Capital savings formation indebtedness -Guinea Lowincomegroup ~ lSs4 2004 Growth o f capital and GDP (%) (%of GDP) Agriculture 217 24.6 24.9 !6 Industry 28.8 36.4 36.7 Manufacturing 4.2 4.0 4.0 Services ........ 49.5 39.0 38.4 -15 Householdfinalconsumptionexpenditure 80.9 85.2 85.6 Generalgov't finalconsumptionexpenditure .30 8.7 7.5 5.6 Importsofgoodsandsewices ...... 25.9 24.6 25.0 - - -GCF -GDP 1s84*s4 1ss4-04 (averageannualgrovkh) Growth of exports and Imports (%) . 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 Householdfinalconsumptionexpenditure 4.1 3.7 4.0 3.9 O - Generalgov't finalconsumptionexpenditure -14 4.3 8.8 -0.5 -5 Grosscapitalformation 22 2.1 -219 -5.1 Importsof goodsandservices 2.0 2.9 -3a 0.0 -Exports --o-inports , Guinea PRICESand GOVERNMENTFINANCE 1984 1994 2003 2004 Domestic prices lnflatlon(K) 1 (% change) Consumerprices 4.2 12.9 16.6 ImplicitGDPdeflator 2.6 12.4 16.2 Governmentfinance (% of GDP,includescumnf grants) Currentrevenue 10.4 11.1 11.5 99 00 01 M 03 Currentbudget balance 1.o -2.2 1.1 I "I Overallsurplusldeficit -7.2 -5.9 -2.5 -GDPdeflator ' O ' C P I TRADE I984 1994 2003 2004 (US$ m/llions) ExportandImportlevels(US$ mlll.) Totalexports (fob) 610 725 733 1,wo T Bauxite 283 256 301 Alumina 88 144 157 Manufactures 118 96 69 Totalimports(cif) 688 578 578 Food 76 89 91 Fueland energy 69 97 109 Capitalgoods 72 84 84 Exportpriceindex (2000=100j 102 104 99 Import priceindex (2000-100) 95 97 96 I I Termsof trade (2000=100) 107 107 .Expwts .Imports 103 BALANCEof PAYMENTS 1984 1994 2003 2004 (US$ millionsj 1 Currentaccountbalance to GDP(%) I Exports of goods and sarvices 546 763 799 810 Importsofgoods and sewices 488 875 892 878 Resource balance 58 -112 -92 -68 Netinwme -73 -32 40 Netcurrenttransfers -62 5 5 Current account balance -247 -119 -103 Financing items(net) 212 120 I00 Changes in net reserves -3 34 -1 3 Memo: Reserves includinggold(US$ mi//ions) 164 114 69 Conversion rate(DEC, /ocaVUS$l 24.1 976.6 1,986.0 2,449.8 EXTERNALDEBTand RESOURCEFLOWS 1984 1994 2003 2004 (US$mi//ions) Cornposltionof2003 debt (US$ mill.) Totaldebtoutstanding anddisbursed 1,256 3,110 3,457 IBRD 48 0 0 IDA 90 773 1,212 Totaldebt service 110 97 131 IBRD 9 0 0 IDA 1 8 14 Compositionof net resourceflows Officialgrants 60 162 166 Officialcreditors -7 131 -32 Privatecreditors 6 -9 0 Foreigndirectinvestment (netinflows) 1 0 79 Portfolioequity (net inflows) 0 0 0 0:881 World Bankprogram I Commitments 45 48 0 - Disbursements 20 63 33 A - IBRD E Bilateral B - IDA 0 Othermltilateal - F Private - ~ Principalrepayments 6 2 7 C-IMF G Short-tern Netflows 14 61 26 Interestpayments 5 6 a Nettransfers 10 55 19 Note:Thistable was producedfrom the DevelopmentEconomics LDBdatabase. 8125105 82 Annex 15: IncrementalCostAnalysis GUINEA: CoastalMarine and BiodiversityManagement Project The global environmental objective of the proposed GEF alternative i s to promote the conservation of globally and nationally significant habitats and species in Guinea's coastal zone in selected priority areas encompassingthree designated coastalR A M S A R sites. The priority activities o f the GEF project are consistent with the country's CAS, National Environmental Action Plan(Plan National d'ActionEnvironnemental/ PNAE) andNational Biodiversity Action Plan(Plan ~ationaldi-lction de la Biodiversitb / PNAB), and focus on the conservation o f 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 anintegrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use o f 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) inJohannesburg2002: (i) the development and facilitation of the use o f diverse approaches and tools, and (ii) the establishment o f protected areas consistent with international law andbasedonscientific information, includingrepresentativenetworksby2012. 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 o f one integrated coastal conservation zone (ICZ) around the islands o f TristaolAlcatraz, which includes key biodiversity resources specific to the coastal ecosystems o f Guinea; (ii)the support for enhancing the enabling environment related to integrated coastal zone management and environmental impact assessment through institutional capacity-building o f the newly created Ministry o f Environment and associated governmental agencies, an improved legal and regulatory framework andproposedfinancial mechanism for ICZs; (iii) implementation o f priorities o f the project's the communication strategy at localandnationallevel; (iv) the financial support to implement localdevelopment priorities (identified in development and annual investment plans) related to conservation and sustainable resource uses o f populationo f 17 CRDs livingwithin and around key biodiversity target sites and associated up-stream watersheds; and (v) targeted capacity-building for local governments inthe project's intervention area to enable local participation in integrated planning, decision-making and management based on improvedknowledge on biodiversityconservation and sustainableuse. C. Baseline Scenario The baseline scenario includes a limited number o f multi- and bi-lateral donor and government financed activities along the coastal zone, from which very few resources would be h e l e d directly towards marine andcoastal zone biodiversityandecosystemmanagementrelated activities. Although Guinea has designated six W S A R sites in the coastal zone, there is no other specific national intervention or program which addresses site-specific threats andbiodiversityassets andecosystemservices except Guinea's participationin the sub-regional PRCM initiative. PRCM aims to support countries primarily exchanging lessons learned with the establishmentof settingup andrunningMPAs inWest Africa through targetedtraining 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 o f integrated coastal zone management and environmental impact assessment, and (iii) incoherent and incomplete legislative and institutional an 83 framework related to environmental concerns, particular in view o f the on-going decentralization process. Hence, under this baseline scenario, continued and steadily growing pressureresulting fiom the various root causes (see section A and Annex 17), will continue to threaten the long term condition o f the valuable biodiversity and ecosystems inthe coastal zone. The baseline scenario per GEF component can be described as follows: 1.Protectionand conservationof coastalRAMSARsites: 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 o f the first national marine protected area around the islands o f 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 IRDto continue supporting the CNSH-B with technical assistanceto the work program. PRCM funds are expected to become available on the basis o f annual work plans andwill be usedto support basic requirements inthe defined process (e.g., covering basic operational costs o f local focal point (Point Focal du Rbseau desAMP en Aji-ique de 1'Ouest/ M A 0 on the islands o fTristao)) andto learnfrom 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 Ministryof Environment would provide limited in-kindsupport for the first emerging MPA e.g., through participationinthe national SC for the MPA and scientific inventories and assessments. Additional support i s expected to emerge from a larger sub-regional effort under the sub-regional fishery commission (SFC) supportedby a forthcoming programfunded byAFD (2007 -2010, approx. 5 millioneuros).16 2. Enabling environmentfor integrated coastalzonemanagement: Without the GEF support, the Government o f Guinea would provide no direct public sector support to ICZ management and EIA capacity-building efforts. In2009 (around MTR o f the GEF project), results from the then finalized GEFLJNDP supportedNationalCapacity-Self-Assessment Analysis Project are expectedto be used to define priority capacity gaps o f sectoral stakeholders leading to revised annual work plans o f key institutions such as the Ministry of Environment. Under the baseline scenario, PACV would provide limited support national planning functions o f the Directorate for Statistics (Direction Nutionale des Statistiques) o f the Ministryo fPlanningandthe fbture parastatalNational Observatory of Guinea (Obsewutoire NationuZde la Guinke / ONRG) that include the generation, analysis and dissemination o f statistical information that would be o f interest to decentralization, socio-demographics, environmental management and impact assessment. Inaddition, technical assistance, funded by the French Cooperation, for at least 2 years (2006 - 2008) will be provided to the newly created Ministryo f Environmentwith expected contributions to overall intersectoralharmonization andcoordination efforts. 3. Local InvestmentFund: Underthe 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 o f local development plans). Thus, without the GEF alternative, environmental issues and resource-based income-generating activities, except for reforestation which hasbeen addedto the eligibility criteria for PACV I, will notbe funded. '6 Dueto lack of detailedinformationat the time of appraisal,this up-coming activity has not beenbudgetedfor inthe baseline scenario. 84 4. Supportfor Local CapacityBuilding: The baseline scenario o f 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 o f CRDs to plan, manage and evaluate local development programs; and (ii) sensitize andtrain elected localofficials and CRD administrative andtechnical staffinthe areas o f 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 andEvaluation: The baseline scenario includes administrative support for the coordination unit o f the PACV related to the baseline activities mentioned above under components 3 and4. - costs Under the project, it is expected that the government o f Guinea and interested donors will invest approximately US$17.84 million in activities in the project intervention area over the five year project period. The following table presents the estimated distribution o f the costs involved per national entity and internationally supported program perproject component. Table 1,Baseline Scenario Costs (US$ million) Source/ Project / Nature Protection& Enabling Local Support Project Total conservationof environment for Investment for local management, coastal integrated Fund capacity- monitoring and RAMSAR sites coastalzone building evaluation management Government: CNSH-BlMini~try of Fisheries, DNEFlMinistry ofAgriculture, Ministryof Environment, Ministryof Planning (in-kind:salaries and facilities) I I Rural communities (in-kind and cash) 1.40 IDAandIFAD I PACV Iand I1 7.00 15.60 PRCMI 0.20 Guinea --._. .- Total 1 035 1 0.10 I 8.40 I 6.38 I 2.60 I 17.84* ~ * Total maynotaddupdueto roundingoffigures Benefits Under the baseline, the majority o f expenditures will target poverty reduction activities in coastal communities. While the baseline provides minimal support to the identification o f 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 inthe coastalwetlands. The current planned investment o f the baseline projects will most likely not ensure the protection o f globally significant biodiversity resources at the project target sites. Under the most optimistic conditions and long-term 85 scenario, the baseline may result inthe creation o f a marine protected area around the TristaolAlcatraz, and may ensure some safeguarding o f natural resources and biodiversity assets. However, the provision for a sustainable site-specific management system including monitoring and evaluation i s most likely not given under the baseline due to insufficient funding as well as lack o f integration into a larger multi-sectoral and multi-donor coordination effort. It is unlikely that inthe baseline situation, the decline o f biodiversity could be reversed and the livelihood o f resource-dependent coastal communities enhancedthroughbetter resource management. D.GEFAlternative Scenario Strategic Approach The objective o f the GEF Alternative i s to promote and implement an integrated approach to the conservation and sustainable use o f globally important biological resources incoastal 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 maximummainstreaming o f environmental andnatural resourcemanagementissuesinto 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 o f Environment, Ministry o f Agriculture, MinistryofTourism, Ministryo fPlanningetc.) and establish a formal mechanism o f collaboration and coordination within the broader context of integrated coastal zone management. To cope with the overall constraints of rural poverty and the multitude o f sectors involved in integrated coastal zone management, the project will build significantly on the existing institutional setting, community-drivenapproachand 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 o fPlanning. Geographic Scope Guinea has not yet established formally protected areas inits coastal zone, as i s the case in neighboring Guinea-Bissau with which the coastal zone shares many characteristics. However, six RAMSAR sites inthe coastal zone have been designated in 1993 as wetlands of international importance because o f 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 inAnnex 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 I C 2 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 addressednow andput under anintegrated andparticipatorymanagementscheme. The GEF project will buildupon and add value to on-going work o f nationally and internationally involved institutions and partners. It will draw lessons learned from the first site to support the development o f a toolbox for the establishment andimpact evaluation o f such ICZbymid-term.This will enable the country to 86 apply and adapt the toolbox inthe second site @boPongo) as well as provide input for the development o f a national strategy for creation andmanagemento fprotected areas. Technical Composition The total incremental cost of the GEF Alternative amounts to US$5.0 million (see Incremental Cost Matrix below), withinvestments inthe following components: 1.Protectionand conservationof coastalRAMSAR sites: Guinea's coastal zone has been identified as one o f the West African biodiversity hotspots, however, until now, Guinea i s 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 o f a marine protected area as part o f a regional network initiative (F'RCM). Therefore, the project, through this component, aims to providethe necessaryincremental strategic and operational tools and experiencesto establish and manage the future ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz and lay the foundation for the designation o f 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 andinitiativesinthe sub-region to adapt themto the country andsite-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 o f carrying out site-specific and adapted activities such as detailed stakeholder analysis, participatory demarcation, mapping, provision o f 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 o f participatory management plans and annual operating plans, provision o f 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 o f integrated impact monitoring systems based on existing baseline studies and use o f WWFnnrTB tracking tool to measure effective management. Inaddition, the experienced gained inthe first site will lead to the development o f a tool-box for testing and adaptation in the second site. The PRCM i s fully committed to participate and support the national processthrough technical assistance and limited direct funding for operating costs based onprogressmade. Itwill complement limitedGovernmental counterpart andother funding(RMCP, AFD). 2. Enabling environmentfor integratedcoastalzone 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 o f 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 managementsuch as the Ministry o f Environment, Ministry ofPlanning, Ministryo fAgriculture, Livestock, Water andForestry/DNEF, Ministry o f Fisheries andMarine ResourcesICNSH-B, Ministry o f Tourism) will participate in ICZ management training sessions to reach common understanding o f underlying principles and issues inthe context of nationalmandates and functions o f these sectoral and cross-cutting institutions. The GEF funded activities of this component will be reassessedand adapted ifneededby mid-termreview based on findings o f the GEFluNDP supported NCSA project. Specific support would be further given to review andup-date the policy, legal andfinancial framework relatedto ICZs. (ii) GEFincremental funds will 87 also be used to improve and strengthencoordination, communication and awareness related to conservation and protection of coastal and marine biodiversity and environmental assets through implementation of the communication strategy developed duringpreparation. 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 bythe endo fthe GEFproject. 3. Local Investment Fund: GEF support to this PACV component would augment resourcesavailable under the LIFwindow ofPACV (US$20,000 annually per CRD) in those selected 17 CRDs in Maritime Guinea around biodiversity target sites and associatedup-stream watersheds. The GEF project's supplemental LIF manual includes a detailed description o f the criteria and typology o f eligible conservation and sustainable use activities. GEF incremental funds will be used to implement innovative as well as already tested NRM activities, the latter beingpartlywell-documented and pre-defined together with communities under the now closed AGIR and OGMprojects 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 LIFo f PACV. Overall impact monitoringof the GEF project under component 5 will focus inparticular on monitoring and evaluation o f these sub-projects and inclusion o f results and findings in the replication strategy to up-scale successful activities elsewhereinthe coast andcountry ifapplicable. 4. Support toLocal CapacityBuilding: The GEFincremental support to this PACV component will focus on supporting the selected 17 CRDs inthe coastal zone with training and tools to assist them in devising sustainable and more holistic local development that specifically include biodiversityprotectionand sustainableuse o fnatural resources. 5. Project Management, Monitoring andEvaluation: The objective o f 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 o f the established PACV coordination offices at national and regional level (URC Bok@includingcost-sharing ofjoint SC andCT meetings (see Annex 6 for more details). The concerned national and local entities and international partners involvedinthe baseline scenario are the primaryinstitutions involvedinthe implementation o f this GEF project except the Ministryo f Environment andMinistry ofTourism(both currently not yet representedinPACV's SC). Benefits Globalbenefits: Theproject would directly andindirectlyaddressidentifiedroot 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 biodiversitybenefits: Establishment o f the fEst ICZ around the islands o f TristaolAlcatraz thereby ensuring (i)decreased loss and degradation of critical coastal habitats and ecosystems o f 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 inGuinea-Bissau, the Medium SizedProject inThe Gambia, the West African Turtlenetwork, etc); and(iii) increasing global network o f coastaVmarineprotected areas. Development o f a replicable model (toolbox) for such areas and lessons learned for application in other countries. 9 Potential for larger transboundary protected areawith Guinea-Bissau (Cacine I Matanhaz Park). Nationalandlocalbenefits: The conservation and sustainable use o f coastal and marine biodiversity and related ecosystems, and the equitable sharing o f local and national benefits from their use are fimdamental to socioeconomic development andpoverty alleviationboth locally andnationally. The projectwill help to: improve the institutional, legal and financial framework for environment and natural resource managementingeneral andcoastal andmarinebiodiversityinparticular; reduce the loss and degradation of Guinea's coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats and thus contributing to maintainingthe productivityuponwhich 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 transcendsectoral boundaries; identify and test potential alternative livelihood strategies that promote both improved biodiversity conservatiodsustainable use, andimprove the quality o f life at the local level; increase awareness of the importance o f biodiversity and natural resource management for local and national economic development andpoverty 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, andco-management agreements; develop income generating activities and other economic incentives to reduce poverty and to maintainidentifiedco-managementschemesinICZsinthe longer term; and develop a toolkit for successful establishment andmanagemento f second ICZ site inGuinea around RioPongo. 89 IncrementalCosts Incremental Expenditures: The total expenditures under the Baseline Scenario are estimatedto beUS$17.84millionwhile the total expenditures under the GEF Alternative are estimatedto beUS$23.55 million.The incremental expenditures under the GEFAlternative aretherefore US$5.70million,ofwhich: GEF: US$5.00 million Government: US$0.47 million Communities:US$O.23million The GEF increment o fUS$5.0millionrepresents 21percent o fthe total cost o fthe GEF Alternative. Table 2. Alternative Scenario Costs &JS$ million) Source I ProjectI Nature Enabling integrated coastalzone management Government: CNSH-BIMinistryof Fisheries)DNEFlMinistry I ofAgriculture) Ministryo f 0.35 0.20 0.55 1.10 Environment, Ministryo f Planning (in-kind:salaries andfacilities) Ruralcommunities @-kind andcash) 1.63 IDAandFADI PACV IandI1 6.00 2.60 15.60 PRCMI 0.20 Guinea 0.20 GEF ___ 0.90 1.00 0.80 5.00 Total * Totalmaynot addupdueto roundingoffigures The incremental expenditures of US$5.768 million are partially offset by incremental benefits identified above. These global, national and local benefits would not have been realizedinthe baseline scenario. The allocation ofthese amounts is summarizedbelow: Table 3. Incremental Cost Matrix Component cost Cost DomesticBenefits GlobalBenefits Category US$m I.Protection and Baseline 0.35 Preparationwork for establishment of one Limited imrovement on site- conservationofcoastal m a k e protected area with limitedbaseline specific coistal andmarine RAMSAR sites dataandlimitedfunds for participatory ecosystemcontaining globally developmentapproachavailable. significant biodiversitythrough improved data andknowledge. 90 GEF 1.45 National andlocalexperienceandknow- istablishment and maintenance Alternative how willbe gainedthroughprocess of Ifthe firstICZ(85,000 ha) establishingone ICZ. KoundTristaolAlcatraz iafeguarding globally Site-specific multisectoral monitoringof irioritized valuable socio-economicenvironment andcoastal )iodiversity and ecosystems. andmarine ecosystemsestablished providingdata for decision-makers at Effective management various levels. issessmenttool usedregularly :oguide integrated coastalzone Community participation inidentification mnagementleading to of site-specific managementscheme gignificant global leading to reducedpressures onresources mvironmentalbenefits. andpotentially increasedlocal incomefor some stakeholder groups. [mprovedconservationo f globally significant coastaland marinebiodiversity (habitats and species) of 85,000hawith removal o f identifiedthreats, andirnprovedresourceuse practicesbyparticipating communities. Potential for expansionto a kamboundary protected area with Guinea-Bissau(Cache Park). Multisectoralmonitoring o f prioritizedbiodiversityhotspots andecosystemsinandaround RAMSAR sites provides data for integrated coastalzone management. Development ofreplicable tool-box for establishmentof ICZ in other countries. 0.10 Limiteddata availability and contribution Limitedimprovement inthe to Guinea's efforts to monitor achievement planningandmanagement ofMDG. capacity o fkey national institutions relatedto coastal andmarinebiodiversity resourcesthrough PRCM's support for participationinsub- regional meetings. Data on condition o fprioritized biodiversity and ecosystems in the coastalzone willgrow fragmentally. GEF 0.90 Capacity ofcentral decision-makersin Coordinated multisectoral Alternative selectedline ministries to carry out knowledge onthe conditionof planning, managementandmonitoringof globallyprioritized marine and 91 integratedcoastal zone including EIA coastal biodiversity and requirements strengthened, ecosystems will become readily accessible to wide range o f A multisectoralandfunctional knowledge stakeholders at all levels. facility accessible to all stakeholders (NOGIONG) . Higher level o f conservation through improved record- A coastal webpage with linksto other keeping andcommunication national and international informationhubs streams onpriority ecosystems, inplaceandmaintainedbynationalentity habitats and species translated (NOGIONG). into actions at policy and implementation levels. A clear andconsistent regulatory and institutional fiamework for ICZs is defmed. Publication and dissemination of lessons learnedwith ICZs A mechanismfor ensuring financial with other countries. sustainabilityofICZs defied. A coordinationframework for CZM established and operationalincluding annualbroad-based stakeholder meetings to address and improve knowledge related to coastal zone management issues improve knowledge. I 111.Local Investment A limited number o finvestments identified Limitedrestorationo fdegraded Fund inlocaldevelopment plansandannual habitats (mangrove forests) in investment plansincoastal CRDs target coastal zone. reforestation measures. Improvedwater and sanitation management conditions in globally prioritizedmarine and coastal biodiversity hotspots andecosystems. GEF 10.23 Implementation o f GEF'eligible Improvedbasis for sustainable Alternative conservationandNRMmicro-projects as management ofbiodiversity part o f localdevelopment andannual resources andopportunities for investment plans inproject intervention alternative income earning area (target 60 percent) will improve the opportunities that would reduce resource base andthereby increase over the pressure onthe ICZs. long-term revenues for localpopulations; guaranteeing for continued availability of Maintenance o fglobally traditional healthcare andfood security. prioritizedmarine and coastal biodiversity hotspots and ecosystems. Baseline 6.38 Increased capacity o f local authorities to support participatory development o f diagnostic anddevelopment and investment plans related to specific socio- economic needs. 92 GEF 7.55 Strengthenedcapacity of local authorities Global environmental benefits Alternative to support development and will occur as a result of implementation oftruly integratedlocal community-based identification plans including specifics o f conservation o f conservationmeasures and andsustainableuse o fNRMand sustainable use ofmarine and ecosystems. coastal zones inandaround the prioritized biodiversity hotspots andwatersheds. Managementand Monitoring and Evaluation GEF 3.40 Support to rural cornunities to Increased geographic coverage Alternative sustainably manage natural resources. ofcoastal protectedareas and expected longer term impact Integration ofIC2management issues into through sustainable sectoral policies throughthe project's management oftarget sites will blended approach andcross-sectoral facilitate safeguarding andlor implementation entities at alllevels. improvement o f the condition o f globally prioritizedmarine Increasedcoordination among various and coastalbiodiversity and partner programs involved incoastal and ecosystems. marine resource management. InputinnationalM&Esystemassessing the condition o f coastal ecosystems to guide integratedcoastal zone management respecting national socio-economic and environmental interests. Total 93 Annex 16: Roots-Threats-Analysis GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagement Project Detailedinformationon (i) coastalecosystemsand(ii) relatedsector issuesincluding a threats and the the root cause analysis i s providedbelow. For site-specific information see Annex 18. (i)Descriptionofthethreeinterlinkedcoastalecosvstems: The coastal plateau ranges inwidth from 20 to 80 km. It abuts the foothills o f the FoutaDjallon and carries most o f the region's road and urbaninfrastructures. It is covered with highly degraded, laterite, sandy and relatively infertile soils used for slash-and-burn agriculture (e.g., cultivation o f rice, groundnut and fonio), andfor crops requiringfew nutrients (such as oilpalms). The saltwater marsh covers nearly 385,000 ha. The marshes can be dividedinto 3 landscapetypes: the upper estuarine plains, the oceanfront plains, and the central estuarine plains, and i s the site of intensive wood cutting, rice cultivation, salt farming, fishing, fish smoking, etc. It consists o f a sedimentary substrate of brackish alluvium on which mangroves have developed. The Guinean mangrove zone is part o f the vast mangrove area stretching from Senegal to northern Angola. It represents one quarter o f West Africa's total mangrove wetland and consists essentially o f mangrove trees of various strains (e.g., Avicenia germinans, Rhizophoru mangle, hariso~iior mucronata, Luc~nculariaracemosu, etc.). Some forest stands o f Rhizophoru still exist (in the Benty area) and there are significant stands in the Bay o f Sangarcahand the area o f Kanfarandk). A single-species stand of old Avicenius, unique in Guinea, spans over 1,000 ha on the south side of the Monchonplain. The mangroves ecological function i s closely intertwined with that o f 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 i s crisscrossedwith numerous watercourses due to the extraordinary volume o f the various watersheds feeding it. The largesize ofthe continental sea shelf (interms of its lengthandgentle slope) explains the exceptional tidal variations (3.5 to 7 meters) and the absence o f 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, o f which 78,000 ha are thought to bestill under cultivation, withthe resthavingbeenabandoned(due mainlyto 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 o f Guinea's EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone). It does not experience much deep sea upwelling, and nearly all o f its replenishment comes from the nutrient-richwaters o f the coastal plateau and mangrove area. Traditional andindustrialfishing activities have become increasingly intensive. Coastal erosion is mainly causedby natural processes. This phenomenon can be correlated with the severity o f winds and, thus, with the resulting ocean swells andrainfall. Duringperiods o f highwinds, and therefore o f 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, highrain and weak swells, the mangrove advances, soils become less saline and cultivated areas can expand. This irregular inter-annual phenomenonhasbeentermed the "breathing" o fthe mangrove swamp. The coastline i s thus inperpetual 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 describedabove doesnot sufficientlyreflect the complexity and interactionbetween these entities. Indeed, interms 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 renewingthe fertility of the two upstream systems. By means o f its flushing effect, it also rinses and desalts the estuaries and enriches the marine environment. The saltwater marshstabilizes the sediment layer (with the help o f the mangrove trees) and regulates inflow from the ocean. The continental sea shelf, through its tidal effects, helps restore the fertility o f the various salt marsh plains and is itself enriched with alluvium when the flushing phenomenon takesplace. The interdependenceo fthe three coastal ecosystemsis all the moreevident since they co-exist in a relatively limited andheavily populated area. Any change inone involves consequencesfor the other two. The disappearance of the mangrove swamp would eventually result in a sharp reduction in fish stocks and in great lossesof surface area and fertility inthe usableplains of the saltwater marsh. Two other important sites in terms o f habitat conservation are the following: (i) Remnants o f mesophilic forests that still have some large specimens o f slow growing tree species (e.g., Chlorophora excelsa (Iroko), Terminalia ivorensis (FramirC), Afielia africana (LinguC), etc.). These are found particularly on the islando f 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 a c ~ m i ~ (cola a ~ a nut tree, etc.). They are home to a rich and often endangered fauna (e.g., chimpanzees, antelopes andeven lions inthe northernpart o f KanfarandC). {ii)ThreatandRootCausesfortheCoastalZoneofGuinea The main threats relate to the conversion, fiamentation and alteration of natural 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 o f global interest. Hence, in the coastal zone, this i s of impact on the condition o f remnants o f the former Upper Guinean Forests, including the classified Forests, and the 6 designated, currently unprotected, RAMSAR sites. a) Wood Collection The forest areainthe coastal zone comprises humidforest, dry forest andwoody savannas. Currently, a total of about 112,068 ha o f 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" o f Kindia and Fria. The conditions o f these forests have been seriously declining. Destruction or alteration o f remainingunclassified forests, excluding mangroves, while representing mostly woody savannas (about 2,500,000 ha early 199Os), is most intense around the city o f Conakry, as a result o f its wood fuel demand. In 1989, charcoaling inthe prefectures o f 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 o f this has been altered by cultivation (estimated 140.000 ha) o f which half would have been abandoned as a result of acidification, An estimate o f the remaining area o f true mangroves is about 280,000 ha (late 1990s). Coverage i s estimated to be regressing by 4 percent annually. Regarding the exploitation o f the mangroves for wood in 1990, the following distribution o f uses was estimated: rural households' energy (59 percent), Conakry household energy (21 percent). dryng and smoking of fish (24 percent). extraction o f salt (36 ' percent). Inparticular the pressure on the mangroves resources North and South o f Conakry are indirectly impactinglocal 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 i s 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. Inthis context the Plan d'Amknagement des Plaines Rizicoles de Guinke Maritime (PAPR 2001) proposes to increase rice productioninthe coastal zone by2005, by expanding the areaunder rice andbyincreasing yields perha. The plan proposed an expansion o f irrigated rice cultivation by 19,111 ha within the coastal stretch between Guinea BissauandConakry, covering the departmentso fBoffa, Bok$ andDubreka. Among these i s the area around Kapatchez, o f which 4.542 ha, about 47 percent o f its total area, would be irrigated with expected negative impacts on coastalRAMSAR sites. c) Livestockholding In1998, the coastal zone involvedabout 362,000 livestock units. Seasonaltranshumant cattle herds moving between the plateaus o f TelimC16, Fria and Bok6 andthe plains around Kamsar andKoba dominate livestock holdings inthis region. This transhumantherdcomprises about 80,000 heads of cattle, ownedby about 1,000 livestock holding families. Inaddition to this purelypastoral type o f livestock holding there are also mixed crop-livestock holders, which are mostly located the southern hills o f the Fouta in the region o f Bok6 and Kindia. Already, competing interests o f livestock holding and cropping for land and water are a source o f conflict between different types o f producers. Hence, indicating the growing demand for land and water resources, the threat o fencroachment o fproductionsystem onnatural habitats is tangible. d) Harvestingof nativeplantspecies No detailed information on the use o f native plant species inGuinea and inparticular inits coastal zone in these has been found. However, it i s clear that the encroachment o f the production systems on the valuable natural habitats in the region and the exploitation pressure o f valued species, are diminishing relevant medicinalresources which still play a major role inthe absence o f adequateor insufficiency o fpublic health services. e) Hunting For populations residingclose to valuable natural habitats, containing highbiodiversity, huntingprovides the majority o f the protein intake. Although hunting i s formally regulated by law (V97/038/AN), very little i s known on the extent o f 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 o f favored larger animals is threatening certain species includingcrocodiles (Yarannilotica) andbatrachians ( ~ ~ ~ n o ~ atokba). t ~ a c ~ ~ s f)Fishing Guinea's rich coastal and inland fish resourceshave been halvedbetween 1986 and 1992, while more recent numbers estimate that current catch levels represent only one fiftho ften 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 i s evaluated to reach similar levels. However, industrial vessels are increasingly encroaching upon the zones for traditional fishing, leading not only to destruction o f habitats, but also o f traditional fishery equipment and increase social conflicts amongst industrial and traditional fishermen. The pressure inthe rest o f the EEZ is predominantly from industrial fishing, which is dominated by foreigners. 96 The catches inthe EEZ are more or less uncontrolled, with boats leaving the area through the open sea. The overexploitationo f the fish resources also relates to the nature o f fishing practices, which result inimportant losses inreproductive capacity. Guinea does not have the coastal facilities to receive and process industrial amounts o f fish catches for export. Thus, industrial fisheries (including illegal fishing vessels) compete directly with dynamic local small-scale (traditional and subsistence) fisheries, inparticular as fleets often do not respect the limitation o fthe EEZ and enter highly sensitive breeding andnursery grounds (no-go zones). This "grey gold rush" is facilitated by unprecedentedtechnological developments. The impact o f 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 associatedkey economic activities such as fish processing (dried and smoked fish) and salt farming, to an alarming rate o f mangrove deforestation. The rapid development o f these activities and the lack o f inter-sectoral planningand coordination have further acceleratedthe degradation of coastal habitats @e., through reduction o f 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 andundersized fish, dynamite fishing, using monofilamentnets and taking sharks andrays for the sole aim o f sellingtheir fins. Disputes frequently break out among fishermen and also between interest groups fiom different economic sectors. Guinea as well as it neighboring states i s severely under-equipped to face these challenges. National and sub-regional strategies should follow the principles o f Integrated Coastal Zone Management, based on appropriate scientific research, on long-term monitoring o f coastal societies and ecosystems and ensure longer-term efforts to harmonize and coordinate sectoral policies and legislation including provision o f financial means for their implementation. g) Water pollution Overalllack o f sanitation andwaste management inthe country is a major probleminthe coastal zone andin particular in and around the urban centers. In 1997 in Conakry, the system in place was ineffective inthe disposal and treatment o f 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 industrialactivity isbauxite mininginKamsar, Fria andGndia. Inparticular, waste management o fthe first two larger sites, have a downstream impact on coastal natural habitats. Added to this there is also some uncontrolled small-scale mineralmininginthe area (mostly gold anddiamonds), which pollutes the adjacent waters. Furthermore, largerindustrialsizedtrawlers dump fuel andwaste inthe sea. h)InSite and Off- Site Landdegradation andWater 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 o f the watersheds involved. Since the coastal zone comprises downstream areas o f numerous watersheds, it i s being impacted by the accumulative effect of humanactivities within and outside the coastal zone. Uncontrolled changes in sedimentationinthe watersheds are likely to affect the condition of all coastal RAPVZSAR sites. i)LegislativeandInstitutionalFramework Legislation and institutional responsibility to maintain and protect the condition o f 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 o f 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 threatshave beenidentified: a) Poverty The coastal zone represents the least deprived natural region in terms o f combined economic and social services indicators in the country. However, with poverty remaining significant, capital to invest in sustainable management o f natural resources by local communities i s lacking. Furthermore, the diffisiveness, ineffectiveness and partly lack o f adequate land and water use regulations and responsible institutions are favoring unsustainableuse o fthe naturalresources. b) PopulationPressure The temtory o f the coastal zone (43.730 Km') comprises a shore line of about 300 to 320 km long and a widthvaryingfrom 100to 150km.Withinthe national context, the coastal zone, representing about 15 to 18 percent o f the national territory and hosting about 40 percent o f the estimated 7.3 million population, is definitely exposed to a high burden o f 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 fromwithin andoutside the country, partlyas a result o f its economic advantages andthe politicalinstability o f anumber o fneighboring coastal countries. c) Urbanization Three o fthe 10most important cities o f Guinea, interms o fpopulationsize, are located inthe Coastal Zone: Conakry, Kamsar andKindia. The populationo f Conakry comprises about 16percent (1.094.075 in 1996) of the total national population and is still rapidly expanding. Population density inthe zone ranges from over 400 habitants/ km2 inand around the cities to less than 20 habitantskm2inm a l areas. The concentration o f people inurbancenters leadsto excessivepressureon surrounding natural habitats. Table 1: Coastal zone threats, root causes and project activities. Poverty and Global Threats Root Causes Project Activities Environment inCoastalZone The globally valued biodiversity Conversion, -Fastgrowingpopulation: Through linking withexisting of Guinea's coastalzone fragmentation and 292% between 1963 and relevant initiatives suchas PACV, representa significant portiono f alteration ofglobally and 1996. Concentratedin RMCPand incoordinationwith the naturalresources on which nationallyvalued urbancenters reaching other relevant programs, the GEF inparticularthepoorestpartof biodiversity ofthe densities o fover 400 project aims to contribute to the the residing population heavily remnantso fthe Upper hikm2versus lessthan20 preservation ofthe globallyvalued depends for income, labor, food, GuineaForest and 6 h/km2insomeruralareas. biodiversityo fthe coastalzoneby: water, shelter andhealthcare. RAMSAR sites -Uncontrolledexpansion 7 Supporting the establishment o f at leastone ICZ arounda keyzone ofunsustainablewood for biodiversity conservation cutting, cropping, (TristaolAlcatraz) while measuring livestock holding, fishing, the socio-economic and ecological huntingandharvestingof impact (component 1) native species. Supporting institutional - Lack capacity and inter-sectoral of waste and collaboration, communication, and sanitationmanagement. datagathering andexchange to - Inandoff-site facilitate the implementation o f land sustainablecoastalzone 98 degradation andwater management (component 2). flow changes ' UsingLocalInvesment Fundinproject interventionarea, - Ineffective legaland priority sites andassociated institutional framework watersheds to support activities, andcapacity to protect the which preserve biodiversity and conditiono fvalued natural enhance sustainable use thereof habitats, including (component 3). biodiversity. .Raiselocalawarenessfor - Lack the needto preserve their natural o finter-sectoral resources andto buildcapacity to collaboration and databank implement and manage relevant sharingand exchange activities (component 1and 4). mechanisms. Support management and M&E&the project activities (component 5). 99 Annex 17: Project InterventionArea and Target Sites This annex presents (i)map of the project intervention area; (ii) a overview o f the six costal RAMSAR sites; (iii) informationrelated to the national process to create an ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz; and (iv) a detailed description ofthe future ICZ site TristaolAlcatraz to be supportedbythe GEFproject. fi)Interventionarea 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 9831 10173 20004 Koba(Tatema) 17395 18335 35730 ~ Lisso 3954 3921 7875 Maferinva 11626 12056 23682 Tougnifily 13064 14115 27179 Tanknk(BokC) 8939 10075 19014 Ouassou 5478 5942 11420 Total 148197 156566 304763 fii)OverviewofthesixRAMSARsitesalongGuinea'sCoastalZone 100 The map below shows the locationo fthe six severalvillages where localpopulation live mainly M S A R sites 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, L a m cirrocephalus andSternacaspia), while other notablespeciesare 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 threatenedmanatee (Tricechussenegalensis). > The above two sites will be treated as one single ICZ to be supported by the GEFproject. 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 o f guano, providingnesting habitat for the largest colony (3,000 pairs) ofSulaleucogaster inWest Africa. The smaller island (Naufrage) is a low sand bank which remains uncovered at high tide, providing P The abovesite is the secondaryfuture 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 unusualin West Africa for the 09'26'N 013'46'W) is atesting andlaying areafor occurrence of coral and rare fish species. I t 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 (Lepidochelysolivacea), which coral reefsupporting somerare specieso f fish. reproduce here. Little is known about the intertidal and submarinehabitats althoughdolphin, The W S A R site Konkourb (90,000 ha; manatee, shark andgiant turtle OCCUT. 09'45 'N 013'41 'W) is another estuarine complex forming part o f the KonkourC River Delta, with The W S A R site 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 N o Kapatchez (20,000 ha; resting ground for several hundred grey pelicans. 10'25'N 014'33'W) represents a complex o f Mudflats support large numbers o f 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 marshycoastal 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 insurrounding areas. 102 {iii)InformationrelatedtothenationalProcesstocreateanICZaroundTristao/Alcatraz Basic elements considered The overall strategic goal of the government of Guinea for a more sustainable development o f its fragile and increasingly threatenedcoastal zone i s to establish overtime a network or system o f ICZ that covers the diversity o f distinguishable ecosystem types including habitats and species andassociatedlocalizedresourceuses andusers. Sucharepresentativesystem ofICZis intended to: a. maintainbiodiversityo f global importance; b. maintainecologicalprocessesandsystems; c. allow species to evolve andfunctionundisturbed; d. providea safety marginagainsthuman-inducedandnatural disasters; and e. provide a solid ecological base from which threatenedspeciescanrecover. The national approach to establish the first ICZ around TristaolAlcatraz is based on lessons learned from other countries, inparticular within West Afkical7, such as: a. most bioregions are under-represented; b. manyhabitats types areunderrepresented; c. most areas are too small to be effective (irrespective o ftheir level o fprotection); d. mostareas arerelativelyisolatedfrom eachother; e. most areas are not managedor assessed; andthat f. these kinds of areas cannot be suitably protected unless supporting activities are undertaken inthe upstreampartsofthe ecosystem(watershedapproach). 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 o f 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 o f the ecosystem need to be maintained and the health and productivity of coastal and marine ecosystems and their relatedbiodiversity are to beprotected. 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 inthe 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 landandwater degradation inadditional targeted sub-watershedsthereby contributingto a larger integratedwatershed approach. l7Exchanges o flessons learned are facilitated through Guinea's participation inthe 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 o f the coast's key hot spots, which are o f crucial importance for the replenishment o f fisheries resources and biodiversity as a whole. MPAsalso protect fragile habitats such as seagrass beds andmangroves, andare home to humanpopulations whose centuries-old environment-based culturalvalues 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 andare important to ensuring the future o fhumancoastal cultures. Inrecent years, national and local organizations and institutions inWest Africa have also been working to promote coastal planning, inparticular through the establishment o f the Subregional Coastal Planning Network launched by IUCN in 1997. These efforts are premised on the awarenessthat coastal planningcannot be dissociated from more general management and land- useplanning. Severalpartner institutions have decided to co-ordinate their efforts and fimding in support o f 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) andothers. RMCP seeks to support the establishment of aneffective network o fmarineprotected areas in West Africa, based on the principles o f participative management and sustainable development. Its aims are hlly in line with the priority directions adopted by the major international conventions inthis field, inparticular 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 o f flora and fauna. Inits initial phase (2004-2008), the priority o f RMCP i s to implement its recommendations through specific actions and to strengthen capacity o f its member countries. During the subsequent phases, the MPA network will progress toward becoming part of an integrated coastal zone managementperspective, 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 o f a more coordinated and large-scale sub- regional CZM approach as a key component inthe battle against poverty and as a way to conserve anduse sustainably globalbiodiversity. 18Guinea is the only member country whichdoes not yet possessa MPA IICZ. 104 Roadmap for establishment o f anICZ TristaolAlcatraz A briefhistoricaloverviewandroadmap allows assessingthe country's commitment andpartners intheprocessofcreating the first IC2aroundthe islandsofTristao andAlcatraz. a. Early 2002: Guinea participated in a RMCP Workshop inNouakchott 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 o f MPAs is highlightedto address poverty reduction and favor integrated management. C. Guinea May 2002: During two national stakeholder meetings, the two RAMSAR sites, islands o fTristao andAlcatraz, 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 o fNaturalResources, Water andForestry (DNEF), Directorate of Maritime Fishery (DNPM)with its Scientific Fishery Institute (CNSH-B), the Directorate of Environment (DNE)andthe Observatory o f Guinea Maritime (OGM). d. May 10, 2003: The Government of Guinea (through the Minister of Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry (MAEF) and the Minister o f 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 andthe Master Planfor FishResources. e. December 2004 -December 2005: With limited financial andtechnical support from RMCP (FIBA, WWF, IUCNincludingexperts fiom Guinea-Bissau), Guinea launchedthe process to establish an ICZ around Tristao based on a work program. Key activities included the (i) identification and recruitment o f 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 E R M C P (Arrettt No29231 MPAl SGGl 2005) with the following members: Ministry o f Higher Education and Scientific Research, Ministry o f Hydraulics and Energy, MinistryofFisheries andAquaculture, Ministry ofAgriculture, Water andForestry, Ministry of Land-Use Planning and Decentralization, Ministry o f Tourism and Hotel Industry, Ministry o f Planning, Ministry of Environment (Center for Protected Areas and Center for Coastal and Marine Biodiversity) University o f Conakry, local stakeholder associations such as UDESKA etc.). Meetings took place inApril and June 2005, (iv) site-specific university researchstudies relatedto resourceuses andpower o f traditional authorities, (v) participation in RMCP meetings, (vi) participation in CZMP and PACV meetings, (vi) workshop to validate West African Conservation Strategy (WWFlWAIvKER), (vii) visit o f community- basedMPABamboung inSenegalby Guinean local focal point RAMAOinNovember, (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 participationat secondRMCP forum inGambia andEL4training event f. Next stepsin2006: Creation o f four technical committees (zoning; legalhnstitutional; communication; overall processlfunctioning) to assist with establishment o f the 105 Tristao ICZ Mobilization o f local communities by FP M A 0 and community facilitators ' basedon identifiedroadmap Availability o fbasic facilities on the islands Additional studies (detailed stakeholder analysis, ecological and socio-economic assessment o fthe islands, solar salt extraction training) u Launch of WBlGEF CZMP and implementation according to results framework andproject implementationplan Stakeholders involved: Local level: Sous-prefecture o fKanfarandk and CRDs o fKanfarandk and Sansalt Prefecture Bok6 Decentralized services ofDNEF, CNSH-B, Ministry ofEnvironment NGOUDESKAsupportssocial andeconomic development withinKanfarandk (Union pour leDkveloppement Social et Economique de Kanfarandk) NGOADESKA supportseconomic andsocial development onthe islands ofTristao Local Communities (Nalous, Ballantes, ...) Fishermen associations Women associations (salt producer, smoked-fish traders) FocalPointM A 0(RkseauAMP Afrique de l'Ouest) Agents Villageois o fPACV Na~ionallevel: CNSHB: Surveys every 2 years coastal zone to get up-date on fishingpractices and movements. Focalpoint andpresident o fthe RMCP SC since 2000 - plays a leadingrole ''' intheprocessofestablishinganICZ. MinistryofAgriculture, Water andForestryIDNEF Ministry o fEnvironment (Center for ProtectedAreas) OGM-NationalObservatory o fGuinea '' International fisheries International stakeholders(RMCP members, , ..) ' Privatesector {iv) Detaileddescription 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, Duringpreparation, prioritybasic scientific information has been collected and included a joint DNEFKNSH-Bfield study. However, the GEFproject will support underits first component andinconjunction withother partners amore in-depth collection and analysis o f site-specific habitats andspecies. 1. The islando f Alcatraz (10 ha) is ideally located (30 miles from the archipelago o f Tristao in the middle o f 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 JustinaBiai andA. Henriques, Missionreport M a y 2003 106 continental sill o f the Atlantic, covered by a layer o f approximately 3m o f guano which has accumulated over a very long period. Inthe recent past (40-60 years ago) guano was dug inthe dry season, which explains why deposits now vary indepth. Nothing is yet scientificallyknown 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 exploitationon Alcatraz clearly had a considerable adverse impact on the brown booby breeding population. In the 30s a team o f about 25 people maintained an annual presence there between December and May. The bird populationtoday seems to have completely re-established itself, thus providing a good example o f how a bird species can recover once humanactivity on site has ceased. The shippingroads to the Kamsar harbor pass a few dozen kilometers to the south o fthe two islands. There is therefore a risk o foil pollutionwhen vessels dischargeballast. A visit byboat (without landing)is possible providedthat the vessel and crew are suitably qualified for seatrips, 2. The mangrove-rich archipelago o f Tristao (85.000 ha) are located inthe delta of the Kogon river, limitedby the Kompony river to the east, by the Atlantic Ocean to the south andwest and by Cacine river to the north at the border with Guinea Bissau. The islands possess a rich hydrographic environment (15 watersheds) which facilitates island water-based transportation and supports a rich biodiversity. There are two seasons, a rainy season from May to November andadry seasonfrom December to April. The annualrainfall is upto 2000mm. The archipelago is composed of four islands: The biggest islandKattarek or Katrak (with three districts Kadigne, Katfoura and Kasmack), the islandKapkin or Katchembe, the smaller island ForiSouri (district Kapkin) andthe islandGnene Souri h o t habited). Due to their geographic location, these islands represent a strategic and economic pole for Guinea with intensivetrade links between Guinea andGuinea-Bissau. Administration The Tristao islands fall under the "prefecture" of BokC and are part o f two CRDs: CRD SansalC (6395 residents) and CRD KanfarandC (19829 residents). The sous-prefecture o f Kanfarandt is the most expanded sous-prefecture (1160 km2)and shares its districts betweenthe continent and islands. Terrestrial access to the sub-prefecture i s possible (i) the bridge over the Rio Nunez via but only duringthe dry season, or (ii) difficult via boat as only a few transport boats link more the harbor o fKamsar with the archipelago. Population on Tristao The earliest documents mention the discovery o f local populations, Nulous, in the XV and XVIIth centuries. Manyof the villages havebeen establishedbyimmigrants, Ballantas, coming from Guinea-Bissau, a trend which increased during the war in Guinea Bissau (1954 - 1963). Today, the Fori Souri islandis exclusively inhabitedby Ballantas. The same ethnical groups live on both sides of the borders (Guinea and Guinea-Bissau). Due to their remote location, Christian missionaries didnot target the islands andIslamreachedthe islands duringthe secondhalfo fthe 20thcentury. Although eachethical group strongly practices its traditional language andculture, 107 the SOUSSOU~S language "soussou" is spoken and understood now by all groups. Tristao i s a colonialname2' andnot usedby localhabitants, Inlocal languagethe islands are called Katrak or Kattarek. "Ntrak"isusedto designatea sacred forest around a little lakewhere 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 o f Guinea's coast (interms of number o fboats), the islands have seen a heavy increase inresidingfishermen 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, includingincreasingmigrationof seasonalfishermen (e.g., from Sierra Leon). Ecologicalsignificance and specieso f global imDortance The areais mainly covered with mangroves, especially the islands o fKatarak andKapkenwhich are crossedby old barrier beaches settled with villages. The coastal line i s filled with sandbanks and mangroves. The mangroves cover a substantial surface (~hizophora~arrisoniand racemosa), Avicennia and Lan~cularia).The inner landconsists o f multiple 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 inmangrove forests. Major fish stocks present are Mugilidae, Clupeides, EthmalosaJimbriat, 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 o f them on IUCN red list as threatened species), and rare species such as H~popotamusamphibious, crocodiles, dolphins and whales. The RAMSAR classificationwas mainly due to these islandsimportancefor birdlife and bird migration. The islands o f 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. Inaddition, there is presenceon Khoni Benki of a nesting colony o fFlatalea alba, ~ r i e s ~ o r naethiopica, Sterna caspia, and gray-headed gullLarus cirrocephalus and presence i s o f 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 andPhoenicopterus rubber andthere is presence of Trichechus senegalensis inthe tidal creeks. Other birdspecies present includes the African spoonbill, sacred ibis, Caspiantern, gray-headed gull, white-necked stork, hammerhead stork, fish eagle, goliath heron, crowned crane, ruff, osprey, lesser andgreater flamingo. The mangrove ecosystem on the islands appears to be still relatively well preserved andthere is limited use o f mangrove wood for firewood and overall limiteddegradation probably due to its isolated location, limited access andthe traditional conservation practices o fthe Nalous. The future transboundan, Drotected area together with Guinea-Bissau would increase substantially the areas under a more sustainable co-management scheme andpotentially include Khoni B e d , part o f the Tristao Islands, and part o f the mainland around Bansalt. This would provide for a larger protection o f 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 beengiven to honor a portugese sailor and slave trader calledNino Tristao. 108 joint efforts related to fishery surveillance, joint mapping and monitoring and evaluation efforts andwillbeconcretizedaspartoftheRMCP meetings. Resource uses andusers 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 andinland, (ii) o f salt-dried exports fish to Senegal, Gambia and Guinea-Bissau, (iii) exports of sharks to international markets, (iv) trade o fpalm oil to coastaltowns such as Bok6 andKamsar, and (v) imports o fother goods. Katchek: 1.Agriculture, 2. Fishing, 3. Trade, 4. Livestock, 5. Oilpalmextraction Kapkin: 1.Agriculture, 2. Fishing, 3. Oilpalmextraction, 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 o f 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 andthus changedsocio-economic andenvironmental dynamics. The sitehasbecome nowadays a prime area for small-scale traditional fisheries with multiple fisher camps established on the islands. The biggest one, Katcheck, illustrates the level o f 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 intensifiedresource use is threatening natural regeneration and recovery processes (mainly o f fish stocks) but also traditional lifestyles inparticular for the Nalous. It has become a basis o f 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 o f Tristao are, probably due their remote location, currently untouchedby outside wood cutters. Site specific threats andimpact o funsustainableuse ' Fishingtechniques (traditional andindustrial) inparticular for red-listed species such as manatee and sea turtles = Destruction o fmangroves through wood cutting ' Degradationo fbeachthereby impactingnesting grounds Poaching, huntingincludingstealing eggs from nesting colonies andcapture o fmigratory birds. These threats leadto increasing conflictsbetween subsistencefishing andtraditional fisheries; betweentraditional fisheries andindustrial fisheries andbetween farmers and those exploiting the mangrove forest (principally for fish processing andsalt fanning). Thetraditionalconservationpractices: The Nalous have a secular tradition o f sustainable management and a profound knowledge o f 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 o f sacredforests (e.g., Kapkin) Interdictionto traverse the river duringthe night Interdictionto fish inspecific watershedsduringrainy seasonandreproduction period Interdictionto cut large andoldtrees andmangrove forests incertain areas .Interdictionto selectivefishery anduseofspecific productsto satisfyexternalmarket destroy anddegradehabitats for medicinalplants H Interdictionof Summary of key issues related to the CCZ around TristaoI 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 GEFproject's design: Appropriate management instnunent for first ICZ. Each "protected area" operates at a local level, where the participationand support o f local communities and stakeholders i s absolutely imperative. Impacts (both positive and negative) are more immediately felt at this level where people are often asked to make significant investments o f time and space. The success or failure of any type o f "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 definedby 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 o f 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) biosphere reserve; and (iii) a a national park. Preparatory discussions with local populations and stakeholders involved including a review o f similar resource use schemes inthe country and inthe 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 1and not applypre-depned options to the secondsite around Rio Pongo. The replicable toolkit to establish an ICZ which will be made available by MTR willprovide for a range of tested options and rely on experiences with eo-managementschemesfor forest management in Guinea. The GEF project will also assist with a review and if needed up-date of thepolicy and legalframework related to ICZ. H Insufficient scientific knowledge o f ecosystem processes, habitats and species: The inadequacy o f material, human, and financial resources devoted to research has resulted ina highlysuperficial andlimited understanding ofthese areas. Inaddition, the mobility o f many animal species (migrations, natural displacement or pollution-induced displacement) contributes to the problems o f surveying animal populations. The GEF project preparation phase supported an integrated basehe study of the areas surrounding the two ICZsites as well as a brief survey related to the socio-economicand 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 beprovidedfor a site-specijic project impact M&E system (component 1). Insufficient human. technical and financial capacities: As part of the preparation process, the GEFproject 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 components2 and 4 in targeted areas (EIA, ICZ management andparticipatory processes). The GEFproject 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 o f industrial fishing near the Tristao site. Negative impacts stem from the techniques used by industrial fishing resulting in the indiscriminate capture o f all types and sizes o f 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, andthe emphasis they place on financial compensation, those involved inindustrial fishing exert strong lobbying pressures on the national authorities to obtain fishing licenses. The traditional fisheries, as well as the processing and marketing o f its products, constitutes the major activity o f the immigrant population established in the Tristao Islands. These migratory movements are buttressed by the fact that there i s a lack o f clear property tenure rules, complicated by increased migration &om conflict areas in neighboring countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, and Ivory Coast). Because o f 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 o f this traditional fishery activity has resulted in conflicts with the native populations. Inparticular, they regard the practice as failing to preserve the environment, which is contrary to their traditions, and as leading to a loss o f 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 thefuture 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 1and 2. Facilitating the establishment o f a trans-boundarv conservation area. There is a neighboring site o fmajor ecological importance (Mata de Cantanhez) inGuinea-Bissau, which is also the subject o f a WBIGEF CZMP project. This area could be tied into the I C 2 for the Tristao Islands. Following the formal establishment o f the ICZ Tristao, Guinea-Bissau has expressed its commitment to launch the process to create such adjacent protected area on the other side o f 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 isfacilitate through the overall RMCP initiative where both countries actively participate and close coordination with the on-going K W E F CzlMP in Guinea-Bissau. Integrating ICZ in overall coastal zone planningprocess. It i s 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 i s therefore crucial to support public and private policies that promote sustainable development. Whilethe GEFproject is expectedto contribute indirectly to this aim, other sub-regional initiatives such as RMCP and the AFDfunded MPA-Network Program are expectedto support international negotiations. 112 Annex 18: STAPRoster Review GUINEA: CoastalMarine andBiodiversityManagementProject Overview: The reviewer undertook a preliminary assessment o f 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 o f the stated objectives. In the main these have been addressedinthe revised PCD. However, there remains one critical issue that needsto be addressedmore fully inthe PCD. This concerns sustainability o f the RAMSAR sites given the poor standards o f soil and water management in the catchments in the coastal plateau. This is discussed in the section on Scientific andTechnical Soundnesso fthe Project: STAPbased on the GEFEvaluation criteria. Key issues 1,Scientific andtechnical soundnessofthe project Giventhe 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 andpossible success o fproject activities intended to conserve biodiversity. One example i s 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 o f biodiversity associated with the coastal and marine ecosystems in Guinea, including six nominated RAMSAR sites. The PCD acknowledges the lack o f detailed scientific information on the effects o f human development pressures on the ecological linkages between the coastal plateau, marine wetlands and continental shelf components of the coastal zone. A number o f specific issues are identified in the PCD that threaten equilibrium o f the three main components o f 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 o f the prominent issues i s 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 inthe watershedsupstream. This issue was raisedby the reviewer andthe Project Team incorporated the following sentence inresponse"Given the importanceofthe inter-linkages betweenthe differentecologicalzonesin 113 the coastal area through a dense hydrological network, greatly improved management of the three main ecological zones i s needed if the health and productivity o f coastal and marine ecosystems andtheir relatedbiodiversityare to be maintained." (page 12) The PCD goes on to give emphasis to the use o f an ecosystems approach to the improvement of the management o f the priority RAMSAR sites at TristaolAlcatraz Islands andRio Pongo, both o f which are estuarine complexes. However, the PCD does not really develop a strong management relationship between the W S A R sites 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 o f sustainability resulting from a breakdown in coastal ecosystem functions caused by poor management upstream. The project team clearly recognizes that the challenges o f developing a robust program for sustainable coastal planning and management for the whole o f the coastal zone in Guinea may have to be left to other initiatives. However, the reviewer believes that the project budget o f $20 mullion would be sufficient to develop a project modelthat integrates improvements inlandand water use management inthe watersheds linked to the estuarieswhere 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 inthe West African coast. This should be explored as it would strengthen the scientific andtechnical features o fthe project design. The project design features a rangeof appropriate and integrated supporting measuresthat could be extended to the catchments associatedwith the two estuarine R A M S A R sites. These include: the development o f alternative livelihoods, the village development fund, measuresto strengthen the capacity o f stakeholders to help plan for and implement sustainable use o f 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 ecosystemthat should provide a comprehensive andtechnically soundbasis for achieving the statedbiodiversity conservationobjectives. The participative approach taken in the PCD should help ensure the achievement o f the objectives o f conserving biodiversity, promotingmore sustainableforms o fresourcesuse and the successful identification and development o f alternative livelihoods for local communities. The design recognizes the importance o f developingboth awarenesso f conservationissues and active participation o f communities and other local stakeholders in the development o f effective biodiversity conservation initiatives. The role o f the private sector in the conservation o f biodiversity couldbebetter developed inthe 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 l a andinSection 5.3. A key feature o f the project is the development o f a trans-boundary CCA for a series o f 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 o f effective action in Guinea Bissau to maintain the functional ecological linkages betweenthe wider coastal ecosystem andthe islandand estuarine ecosystems that help to sustainthe plannedtrans-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 i s designed to address the GEF Operational Strategy for the conservation o f Biological Diversity. The project directly addresses the goals of the GEF Operational Program no. 2 through measures to strengthen the use o f Marine Protected Areas to protect Coastal and Marine Ecosystems through situ conservation. The project also addresses Jakarta Mandate by supporting conservation andsustainableuseo f vulnerable marine habitats andspecies. The project documentation sets out the measures taken to adhere to the COP guidance as follows: Basingwetland conservation and biodiversity conservation an ecosystem approach. The planned measurescouldbe strengthenedas suggestedabove; 0 Involving localcommunities andresource users, andbuildingon localknowledge, 0 Strengthening community management for sustainable use or ecosystems and renewable resources; 0 Promotion o f economic incentives that support the adoption o f 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 givingemphasis 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 BiodiversityCommittee, discussion and 0 Implementation fora in pilot areas, and fisheries committees as a means o f promoting integration o fbiodiversity into fisheries policies andresourcesmanagement decisions. All ofthe abovemeasurescouldbe extendedto specific watershedsinthe CoastalPlateauto help reduce the negative impacts on the RAMSAR sites downstream. 4. Regional context The project addresses issues o f importance to biological diversity Conservation within the surrounding regionby focusing on sites that are representative o f other parts o f West Africa and contribute to the overall biodiversity o f the region. The project seeks to develop effective linkages with other countries inthe sub-region, especially with Guinea-Bissau and Senegal. One example i s the planto 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 couldbe extended to the wider coastalregiono fthispart o f West Africa. Conversely, it would be beneficial to explore ways in which improved management o f watersheds in other countries couldenhanceladdvalue to the effect o f the biological diversityconservation anderosion control measuresproposed for Guinea. It would be helpful to link the conservation of the two protected area RAMSAR sites with benefits to other ecosystems andnatural resourceso fthe coastal zone. It would also bebeneficial to give stronger emphasis to promoting ways in which improved management o f catchmentslwatershedsinother both Guinea and neigbouring countries could enhanceladd value to the effect o fthe biologicaldiversity conservation measuresproposed for the protected areas in Guinea, includingthe one sharedwith 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 o f the coastal zone protected area concept in other parts o f Guinea, and potentially in other Afiican countries based on the experience gained and lessons learned during the life o f the project. It would be useful to give more emphasis to the exchange o f information and experience gained through the project with other countries inthe regionas the project progresses. 6. Sustainability of the project There is a risk that the short-term improvements inthe management o f 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 o f the CCA management model to include discrete catchments upstream in the first phase that could help ensure continuation o f 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, includingthe PACV. However, it must be recognized that the plannedprotected areas are vulnerable to the effects o f humanpressuresresultinginchangesto the hydrology and erosion inthe Coastal Plateau. To a certain extent, the pressures are being addressedby the PAVC, and the on-going managementof the coastal and marine biodiversity management project will need to maintain close working linkages with the PAVC managementteam to help ensurethat potentialrisks to the sustainability o fbiodiversity conservation efforts inthe coastal zone are minimizedwhere ever feasible. Secondaryissues 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 infocal areas outside the focus o f the project. The proposed project activities appear feasible and cost-effective, and should contribute to global environmental benefits inother focal areas and inthe cross-sectoral area o fcoastal landandwater management. 116 2. Linkages to other programs and action plans at regional or sub-regional levels. The project seeks to builduponpast, ongoing andprospective GEF activities. The project design could be strengthened by makingmore explicit mention o f how the planned activities would be coordinated with work o f other GEF projects and their respective Implementing Agencies and other bodies. This should include how links would be establishedwith relevant ongoing regional or sub-regional programs andactionplans. 3. Other beneficial or damaging environmental effects The project seeks to improve the management o f wetland ecosystems of importance to more than one sector o f the Guinean economy. The planned measure should help reduce conflicts among agencies and economic entities seeking to maximize their respective use o f the coastal and marine resources base. Improved management o f the RAMSAR sites should yield other ecosystem services and social and economic benefits to local communities and those inthe wider region. These benefits could be extended intime and geographic scale if the project was to incorporate improvements inthe watershedsupstream as suggestedabove. 4. Degree of involvement of stakeholdersinthe project Stakeholder involvement i s incorporated as part o f the "participative" nature o f the planned activities. This addressesGEF emphasis on the development o f activities to promote community- basedmanagement o f biodiversity. Giving greater emphasis to the role o f the private sector and local communities, specifically those concerned with agriculture and forestry in the catchments upstream, and commercial fisheries inthe coastal zone could strengthen the project design, The project could also elaborate on the use o f concepts such as the co-management o f resources, or contracts or negotiations with governments that define each stakeholder's responsibility in managing the resource, and the eventual devolution o fbiodiversity managementmeasureto local groups andNGOs. 5. Capacity-building aspects Theproject design gives a clear exposition ofmeasuresto strengthenpublic awareness andbasic expertise o f government officials as well as other stakeholders to support biological diversity conservation. However, the project design would benefit from fbrther clarification o f the measures to promote and maintain cooperation between the various groups o f stakeholders, and transparent mechanisms to ensure the active participation o f relevant stakeholders in the development, implementation andmonitoringo fproject activities. 6. Innovativeness of the project. Measures designed to assist the Government o f Guinea in improving the management o f protected areas through the use o f protected areas is modestly innovative, The project would have greater innovative features ifthe ecosystem concept were to bemorewidely applied to incorporatethe catchmentslwatershedsupstream. Responseto STAPReviewer comment The main technical issue raised as part of the STAP review was the need to clari@ linkages between the coastalzoneprotected areas and the otherparts of the coastalzone ecosystem given their obvious interdependencies,which was also identified in the strategic context section of the report. Thedesign team recognizesthe validity of this comment and has subsequent^ elaborated theproject description to clarijj that the capacity building activities (component 4 of theproject) 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 managementplans 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 thatforms a coherent ecosystem with aprotected area will be vetted by a watershed management committeeprior to approval to avoid inconsistent or counterproductiveactivities. Where these are found, discussions will be entered into with local communities to review the proposed activities and on aparticipatory basis amend the local developmentplan based on the broader information that the watershed management committee can contribute. In support of this, the local investmentfund under theproject supports a window geared towards thefinancing 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 beneficiary contributions, dependingon 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.Oncethis approach has beenproven, it will be adopted into PACV's approach in other areas. The STAP reviewer felt that delays in Guinea-Bissaucould negatively impact the creation and subsequent successful management of Guinea's first coastal zone protected area as transboundary activities would not be able to takeplace and thus activities by local populations in Guinea-Bissau have an undesiredimpact. This risk isjudged relatively low by the design team given Guinea-Bissau'sextensive experience in this area and thefact that theproject 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 teamfeels that theprst 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 thefirst protected area is only partially impacted by activities in Guinea-Bissau andpopulation densities in theseareas are relatively low. Finally, theSTAP reviewerfelt that coordination and consultation between thisproject and other donor supported activities in the coastal zone and the sub-region could be clarified to ensure that there would be an appropriateforum for the exchange of experiencesand thus thepotential replication of bestpractices. This is one of the key roles to beplayed by the coastal zoneforum. Theforum does sofor 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 otherprojects orprograms that havesimilar objectives to this project or that may have an impact on Guinea's coastal zone. Theforum 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° S E N E G A L Sambailo Youkounkoun KOUNDARA R Guingan R Saraboido Kamabi GUINEA- Niagassola Termesse Foul Amory Touba Lebekerin Balaki BISSAU MALI Madina M 12° Wora Gaya Hy Dayatou Madina Naboun 12° Fougou Salabande Gada Kolumbia Dougountouni Fello Telire Woundou R Koundoua Siguirini Doko GAOUAL Kounsitel Yembering Malea Linsan Donyel Matakaou Faranwalia R Sigon Fafaya Manda Diatifere M A L I Touba Tianguelbori Pilimini KOUBIA Kouratongo M M Banora Kintinian Bankon Wendoum Korbi Dion Kouramangui Tou Ganiakali Bourou Malanta Daleni MissiraM M Kolle LELOUMA Tountouroun Kona Sannou SIGUIRI Dialakoro Popodara M M TOUGUE Lansanaya M Kiniebakoura Kakoni Parawol LABE Tangali Sagale Piari R Garambe M B Kalan Nounkounkan Balandougouba M Kalinko DINGUIRAYE Dabiss Heriko Timbi Hafia Noussi Fatako Koin R Missira Koba Madina M Daralabe Selouma Koundianakoro Sansale Sangaredi Ninguelande M Mombeya MR Kansanyi Sintali Niandankoro Kinieran Tanene Sagale Dongol Bantinyel M Kanka Touma PITA Labe R Sansando R Tarihoi Sapekal Bourouwal Komola Koura Kebali Bodie Dialakoro BOKE Konsotami Tappe Norassoba Niantannia Kanfarande B Massi TELEMELE R Ley Miro Dltinn Mafara Kankama Koundian Morodou Daramagnaki M Miti M Teguereya Sanguiana Tristao R Gongore Kollabou Cissela Doura Tionthian Arfamoussaya Kala DABOLA Islands Niagara Faralako KamsarBR Balato Malapouva M Gongore Dogomej Banko R M R Sinta DALABA Bate MANDIANA Bintimodia Banguigni Sangarea Poredaka Koumana Koba Bouliwel Konindou Nafadji Timbo Saramoussava N'dema KOUROUSSA Babila M Mankountan Sogolon Dounet Baguine Tolo Baro R Kegneko Kindoye B Kolle Karifamoudouya Kantoumanina Tougnifili Kolia FRIA Kebali MAMOU Kiniero Gberedou M Baranama Balandou Tondon Bangouva M Konkourie B MB Passya KANKAN Badi Soya Missamana Saladou Douprou Lisso Koumban BOFFA Bendou Tintioulen Tamita Oure-Kaba Falessade Sougueta Tanene Banfele Samaya R M B M Sandenia 10° Wassou R Marela Sabadou Rio KINDIA R FARANAH Baranama 10° Pongo Koba Damakania M R Khorira Friguiage M Madina Nialia Heremakono Moribaya M Molota Woula DUBREK R Kouria Mambia M Maneya Tiro Douako A T L A N T I C COYAH Songoya R Boula Wonkifong R Sikhourou Tokounou Komodou CONAKRY Banian Albadaria Maferiniah Mamouroudou Allassoya R O C E A N Kakossa R Moussava R FORTECARTAH Sangardo Karala Kaback Linko Kaliya R S I E R R A L E O N E Mafran Soromaya Farmoreya Gbangbadou KEROUANE R Kobikoro R 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 KISSIDOUGOU MB Firawa Sokourala Benti Femessadoupombo RDamaro Samamania Diassodou Bendou Bambama Koumandou C Ô T E KILOMETERS RAMSAR SITES Vombiro Banankoro Konsankoro SITES RAMSAR Yende Bardou Fouala 14° Millimou Koudiadou C.R.D. INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROJECT Kassadou Sibiribaro Senko C.R.D. COMPRIS DANS LE PROJET Kpolodou Vatanga R R Gue Dembou Binikala Moussadou R D ' I V O I R E R CREDIT RURAL Vasseridou MAURITANIA CR DIT RURAL Temessadou Bofossou Gnonsamo Gbakedou Gbessoba Balizia Ridou BEYLA M CREDIT MUTUEL Koundou GUEKEDOU Panziazou MACENTA Diaraguerela CR DIT MUTUEL M Fangamadou Nongowa Tekoulo Daro MB Sengbedou Kouankan SENEGAL B BANKS Wondekenema R Boola M A L I BANQUES Vouremei Seredou THE NATIONAL CAPITAL GAMBIA CAPITALE NATIONALE Koropara ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONAL CAPITALS Foumbadou GUINEA- CAPITALES DES MINISTØRES R SIDENTS Nzebela Womey Fassanroni Gueassou BISSAU 8° BURKINA R Koule R RGoueke Laine 8° PREFECTURE CAPITALS Kpale GUINEA FASO PR FECTURES Koyama Kobela Soulouta Gama Kokota Gama Conakry C.R.D. CENTERS R Koni-koni LOLA CHEF-LIEU DE C.R.D. N'ZEREKORE RM Tounkarata Bowe R Yalenzhou SIERRA CRD BOUNDARIES BM Nzoo Pela Bossou This map was produced by the LEONE LIMITES DE C.R.D. R R Bounouma Map Design Unit of The World Bank. CÔTE D'IVOIRE GHANA YOMOU PREFECTURE BOUNDARIES The boundaries, colors,denominations LIMITES DES PR FECTURES Banie Beta and any other information shown on LIBERIA this map do not imply, on the part of INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES L I B E R I A R A T L A N T I C FRONTIØRES INTERNATIONALES The World Bank Group, any judgment Bignamou Dieke on the legalstatus of any territory,or O C E A N any endorsement or acceptance of Gulf of Guinea such boundaries. 12° 10° 8° MAY 2006