Document of The World Bank Report No: ICR00003819 IMPLEMENTATION COMPLETION AND RESULTS REPORT (TF-55983) ON A GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITY TRUST FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF US$4.9 MILLION AND AN ADDITIONAL GRANT FROM THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY IN THE AMOUNT OF US$1.92 MILLION TO THE REPUBLIC OF NAMIBIA FOR A NAMIBIAN COAST CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PROJECT June 26, 2016 Environment and Natural Resources Global Practice Africa Region CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS (Exchange Rate Effective December 31, 2015) Currency Unit = Namibian dollar: N$ 1.00 = US$ 0.06 US$ 1.00 = N$ 15.57 FISCAL YEAR April 1 – March 31 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS GEF Global Environment Facility GEO Global Environment Objective ICEMA Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management Project ICR Implementation Completion and Results Report ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone Management METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool NACOMA Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project NAMETT Namibia Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool OP/BP Operational Policy / Bank Policy Senior Global Practice Director: Paula Caballero Practice Manager: Magda Lovei Project Team Leader: Claudia Sobrevila ICR Team Leader: Benjamin Garnaud NAMIBIA Namibian Coast Conservation and Management Project CONTENTS Data Sheet A. Basic Information B. Key Dates C. Ratings Summary D. Sector and Theme Codes E. Bank Staff F. Results Framework Analysis G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs H. Restructuring I. Disbursement Graph 1.  Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design.................................... 1  2.  Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes .............................................. 6  3.  Assessment of Outcomes .......................................................................................... 11  4.  Assessment of Risk to Global Environment Outcome ............................................. 19  5.  Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance ..................................................... 20  6.  Lessons Learned........................................................................................................ 22  7.  Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners........... 23  Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing .............................................................................. 24  Annex 2. Outputs by Component...................................................................................... 25  Annex 3. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes................. 36  Annex 4. Summary of Borrower's ICR ............................................................................. 38  Annex 5. Borrower's Comments on Draft ICR ................................................................. 54  Map ................................................................................................................................... 56  A. Basic Information Namibian Coast Country: Namibia Project Name: Conservation and Management Project TF-55983 Project ID: P070885 L/C/TF Number(s): TF-13706 (additional financing) ICR Date: 05/10/2016 ICR Type: Core ICR REPUBLIC OF Lending Instrument: SIL Borrower: NAMIBIA Original Total US$ 4.90M Disbursed Amount: US$ 6.80M Commitment: Revised Amount: US$ 6.80M Environmental Category: B Global Focal Area: B Implementing Agency: Ministry of Environment and Tourism B. Key Dates Revised / Actual Process Date Process Original Date Date(s) Concept Review: 06/29/2004 Effectiveness: 11/15/2005 10/17/2005 04/27/2011 Appraisal: 03/07/2005 Restructuring(s): 04/30/2012 12/20/2012 Approval: 09/01/2005 Mid-term Review: 03/09/2009 Closing: 04/30/2011 12/31/2015 C. Ratings Summary C.1 Performance Rating by ICR Outcomes: Satisfactory Risk to Global Environment Outcome Substantial Bank Performance: Satisfactory Borrower Performance: Satisfactory i C.2 Detailed Ratings of Bank and Borrower Performance Bank Ratings Borrower Ratings Quality at Entry: Satisfactory Government: Satisfactory Implementing Quality of Supervision: Satisfactory Satisfactory Agency/Agencies: Overall Bank Overall Borrower Satisfactory Satisfactory Performance: Performance: C.3 Quality at Entry and Implementation Performance Indicators Implementation QAG Assessments Indicators Rating Performance (if any) Potential Problem Project Quality at Entry No None at any time (Yes/No): (QEA): Problem Project at any Quality of No None time (Yes/No): Supervision (QSA): GEO rating before Satisfactory Closing/Inactive status D. Sector and Theme Codes Original Actual Sector Code (as % of total Bank financing) Central government administration 25 25 General agriculture, fishing and forestry sector 50 50 Sub-national government administration 25 25 Theme Code (as % of total Bank financing) Biodiversity 40 40 Environmental policies and institutions 40 40 Other environment and natural resources management 20 20 E. Bank Staff Positions At ICR At Approval Regional Vice President: Makhtar Diop Gobind T. Nankani Country Director: Guang Zhe Chen Ritva S. Reinikka Practice Manager: Magda Lovei Richard G. Scobey Project Team Leader: Claudia Sobrevila Christophe Crépin ICR Team Leader: Benjamin Garnaud ICR Primary Author: Benjamin Garnaud ii F. Results Framework Analysis Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators (as approved) To assist the Recipient to conserve, use sustainably and mainstream biodiversity of the Namibian Coast (a) GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Increase in km2 and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity Indicator 1 : importance under effective management by year 5 compared to baseline situation 66,218 km2 and 3 100,103 km2 and 5 112,185 km2 and 7 Value protected areas protected areas protected areas Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target exceeded. The indicator was split in two separate indicators during the Comments processing of the additional financing. Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities and the Indicator 2 : proportion of their incomes derived from these activities by year 5 compared to baseline. Value 15,774 18,975 33,396 Date achieved 12/31/2012 04/30/2011 12/31/2015 Target exceeded. The indicator was simplified with the additional financing, and Comments the income part, which was difficult to measure and to attribute, was dropped. Coastal biodiversity related aspects better incorporated into planning, policy, Indicator 3 : institutions and investments at national, regional and local levels by year 5 compared to baseline. Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The indicator was deemed unclear and rephrased during the Comments processing of the additional financing. (b) Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Indicator 1 : Establishment of ICZM policy and legal group by first two quarters year 1 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Option papers on various policy and legal aspects, including definition of coastal Indicator 2 : zone and economic impact of targeted policies and legislation developed and disseminated from year 1 to 4 iii Value Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Based on developed and published list of prioritized legal and policy Indicator 3 : adjustments, formal determination related to amended or new legislation and policies drafted and their adoption supported by year 4 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Consultative process (e.g. workshops and reviews) leading to documented Indicator 4 : clarification and harmonization of existing mandated by early year 2 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Decision on need, role, mandate for permanent Namibian Coastal Zone Indicator 5 : Management Mechanism available by end of year 2 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Regional Development Coordination Committees and other regional, local Indicator 6 : coordination fora include increasingly ICZM aspects in decision-making processes from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Option papers on new or revised institutional functions, including job description Indicator 7 : of environmental planner at Regional Council level and management of marine protected areas, developed and disseminated by year 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Defined functions and procedures related to transfer of environmental Indicator 8 : management responsibilities from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism to environmental planners in Regional Councils in place by year 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Vision process finalized through multi-stakeholder participation in a series of Indicator 9 : workshops and consultations resulting in an agreed coastal vision by end of year 2 iv Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Newly created focused expert working group developed option papers on Indicator 10 : targeted priority coastal issues from year 1 - 4 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Namibia Coastal Management White Paper outline document produced and Indicator 11 : widely disseminated for further input and consultation by end of year 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Finalized Namibia Coastal Management White Paper published and endorsed by Indicator 12 : the Government of Namibia by year 4/5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Newly designated national ICZM mechanism and coastal fora is operational and Indicator 13 : disposes of operational and strategic roadmap from year 4 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Financial sustainability strategy and action plan related to ICZM developed and Indicator 14 : implemented from year 4 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Fully-fledged assessment of target group needs related to coast related functions Indicator 15 : finalized by first quarter year 1 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Training, based on developed training manual, conducted in needed skills in particular related to: (i) communication/participatory approaches and mediation; (ii) Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment; Indicator 16 : monitoring and evaluation, including procedures, tools (geographic information system and mapping) and effective data use; (iv) sustainable resource-based economic development at central, regional and local level conducted from year 1 -5 v Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Regular external evaluation reports/survey show increasingly positive trends of Regional Councils, local authorities and line Ministries core capacity to Indicator 17 : implement defined roles and mandates as defined under component 1 from year 2-5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Agreement reached (mainly by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism and Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources) on cost-effective, appropriate and Indicator 18 : accessible data hub to channel coastal and marine biodiversity data to local, regional and central policy and decision-makers by early year 2 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring and evaluation related data is Indicator 19 : systematically collected, stored, up-dated and made accessible to stakeholders by identified mechanism above from year 2 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Identified mechanism issues and disseminates annual coastal biodiversity reports Indicator 20 : from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. A full ICZM communication strategy and action plan, including content, tools Indicator 21 : and channels, is developed by mid-year 1 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. 80% of proposed priority activities for various target groups (e.g. video-clip, Indicator 22 : webpage, road show, field trip for schools, etc.) in communication strategy and action plan successfully implemented from year 1 – 5 Value 0% 80% 100% Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target exceeded. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. vi Awareness about the importance of coastal zone resources and ICZM among the three key institutional target groups and local communities increased by 70% Indicator 23 : compared to baseline survey (and using results from National Capacity Self- Assessment and Ministry of Environment and Tourism’s Biodiversity Training Assessment) by year 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Compact regional coastal profiles for the four regions available by year 2, Indicator: 24 including up-front definition of priority data and data-uses Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Assessment providing detailed analysis of existing site-specific management Indicator: 25 activities and tools, their impact, gaps and proposal of actions for improvement available by end of year 1 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Cost-effective procedures for developing, up-dating and revising management Indicator: 26 plans at site and landscape level defined by year 2 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. New protected areas, including Walvis Bay Nature Reserve and new marine Indicator: 27 protected areas created with project support from year 1 – 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Agreement on approach related to creation of marine protected areas Indicator: 28 (boundaries, management planning) reached by end of year 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Based on assessment results, support for review, revision or development of 100% of identified management plans for terrestrial and marine ecosystems of Indicator: 29 biodiversity importance through participatory approaches, in complementarity with other initiatives, and in line with local and regional development plans from year 1 – 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 vii Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Annual effectiveness assessment (using NAMETT) of target sites in Indicator: 30 coordination with other initiatives available and disseminated from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Appropriated compliance and law-enforcement arrangements for formally Indicator: 31 designated areas and production landscapes supported from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Target site-specific monitoring and evaluation systems developed and functional Indicator: 32 from year 1 – 3 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Financial sustainability strategy for formally designated sites developed, agreed Indicator: 33 to and implement from year 4 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Technical support for development of investment proposals through local and Indicator: 34 regional coastal stakeholders/fora, including technical and fiduciary review and feasibility studies provided from year 1 - 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. 80% of submitted eligible and approved investments completed with agreed Indicator: 35 timeframe by end of year 5 Value 0% 80% 100% Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target exceeded. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Enforcement of existing and new coastal zones policies, plans and legislation at Indicator: 36 regional and local level strengthened from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Indicator: 37 90% of project activities identified in annual work plans satisfactorily completed Value 0% 90% 100% viii Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target exceeded. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Publication of periodic project reports (quarterly, semi-annually, annually Indicator: 38 progress reports) as well as annual work plan Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Regular performance and impact monitoring reports produced and disseminated Indicator: 39 in accordance with project implementation manual and annual work plan schedule Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued during the Comments additional financing because the target was already met. Indicator: 40 Annual audit reports issued Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. If needed, technical assistance provided on specific project implementation Indicator: 41 aspects from year 1 – 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Sustainability strategy and action plan developed by mid-term and implemented Indicator: 42 by end of year 5 (including a replication plan) Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. External mid-term review report available by end of year 3; end of project report Indicator: 43 available by end of year 5 Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2012 Target achieved. The monitoring of this indicator was discontinued after the Comments approval of the additional financing because the target was already met. Revised Global Environment Objectives (as approved by original approving authority) and Key Indicators The Global Environment Objective was not revised. ix (a) Revised GEO Indicator(s) Original Target Formally Actual Value Values (from Revised Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value approval Target Completion or documents) Values Target Years Increase in ha and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity Indicator 1 : importance legally protected 10,010,300 ha 6,621,800 ha and 3 10,010,300 ha and 11,218,500 ha and Value and 5 protected areas 5 protected areas 7 protected areas protected areas Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Target exceeded. The project directly supported the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet/Tsau//Khaeb National Park in 2008, the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area in 2009, and the Dorob National Park in 2010. This indicator and Comments target value were included in the original Project Appraisal Document, but the management aspect of the original description was transferred into a new indicator (see indicator 2 below). Indicator 2 : Increase in score of management effectiveness for 2 protected areas Dorob National Dorob National Dorob National Park: 58 Park: 70 Park: 63 Value Namibian Islands Marine Namibian Islands Namibian Islands Protected Area: 93 Marine Protected Marine Protected Area: 115 Area: 101.5 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 The indicator was partially achieved for both protected areas. A new assessment Comments of the management effectiveness score is pending and should update these results. Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities supported Indicator 3 : by the project Value 15,774 18,975 21,975 33,396 Date achieved 09/01/2005 04/30/2011 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Target exceeded. This indicator and target value were included in the original Project Appraisal Document, but the income aspect of the original indicator was Comments dropped during the processing of the additional financing because it was deemed difficult to measure and not meaningful. Increase in the number of national, regional and local plans and strategies that Indicator 4 : incorporate biodiversity issues Value 0 53 58 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Target achieved. The documents include strategic environmental assessments, Comments tourism development plans, integrated land use plans, marine tourism regulations, and the national oil spill contingencies plan. Indicator 5 : Project beneficiaries, of which female Value 21,000 25,000 33,715 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Target exceeded. The project did not measure the number of female Comments beneficiaries. x (b) Revised Intermediate Outcome Indicator(s) Original Target Actual Value Formally Values (from Achieved at Indicator Baseline Value Revised approval Completion or Target Values documents) Target Years Proposal for the enabling legislation of the National Policy on Coastal Indicator 1 : Management completed Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target achieved. ICZM Bill submitted for final adoption to the Parliament. Indicator 2 : Paper for governance options completed Value No Yes Yes Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target achieved. Paper completed and included in the draft ICZM Bill. Regional or local government coastal management related land use plans Indicator 3 : prepared Value 0 2 2 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Target achieved. Support provided to the Karas Integrated Regional Land Use Comments Plan and the Hardap Integrated Regional Land Use Plan. Indicator 4 : Report on methodologies and lessons learned Value 0 1 0 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target not achieved. The originally planned study could not be completed (incl. % because of limited financing and over-ambition. Comprehensive terms of achievement) reference were developed on the mapping of sensitivity of desert substrates. Number of people trained in ICZM approach and on key tenets of the National Indicator 5 : Policy on Coastal Management Value 0 200 260 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target exceeded. Training on environmental education, law enforcement, (incl. % strategic and project management, community-based natural resources achievement) management and annual law enforcement refresher course. Indicator 6 : Number of awareness, communications and environmental education activities Value 0 30 56 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target exceeded. Most of the activities took place during the bi-annual Coastal (incl. % Biodiversity Weeks and the holiday season campaigns. achievement) Number of investments in pilot areas covering 200,000 ha supporting the Indicator 7 : rehabilitation of land degradation and improving sustainable management Value 0 7 10 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 xi Comments Target exceeded. 10 matching grant investments were financed by the project, in (incl. % areas covering much more than 200,000 ha. achievement) Number of people trained in park management, patrolling, tourism management Indicator 8 : and Environmental Impact Assessment Value 0 150 172 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments (incl. % Target exceeded. achievement) Indicator 9 : Number of selected existing visitor centers refurbished Value 0 3 5 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target exceeded. Khorixas Cultural Heritage and Interpretative Center; Dorob (incl. % National Park; Walvis Bay Bird Paradise; Kuiseb Delta; Namib Botanical achievement) Garden Indicator 10 : One integrated land use plan developed in the adjacent conservancies Value 0 1 1 Date achieved 01/01/2013 12/31/2015 12/31/2015 Comments Target achieved. As advised by the project Steering Committee, a tourism (incl. % management plan for the Tsiseb Conservancy has been developed in lieu of a achievement) land use plan. G. Ratings of Project Performance in ISRs Actual Date ISR No. GEO IP Disbursements Archived (US$ millions) 1 12/29/2005 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.00 2 06/28/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.28 3 12/28/2006 Satisfactory Satisfactory 0.46 4 06/26/2007 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.65 5 06/26/2007 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 0.65 6 12/18/2007 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.03 7 05/28/2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1.16 8 11/21/2008 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.45 9 04/15/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 1.62 10 11/28/2009 Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory 2.29 11 04/16/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.81 12 06/12/2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 2.81 13 01/18/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 3.55 14 10/10/2011 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.30 15 06/11/2012 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.68 16 02/27/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.83 17 09/24/2013 Satisfactory Satisfactory 4.88 18 12/22/2015 Satisfactory Satisfactory 6.72 xii H. Restructuring (if any) ISR Ratings at Amount Board Restructuring Disbursed at Restructuring Reason for Restructuring & Approved Restructuring Date(s) Key Changes Made GEO Change GEO IP in US$ millions Closing date extension from April 30, 2011 to April 30, 2012 (implementation delays) Triggering of safeguard policy 04/27/2011 N S S 3.92 OP/BP4.12 (proclamation of new protected areas leading to potential restrictions of access to natural resources) Closing date extension from April 30, 2012 to December 31, 04/30/2012 N S S 4.55 2012 (implementation delays, additional financing gap avoidance) Additional financing to scale up and add activities to the 12/20/2012 N S S 4.77 successful first phase. The results framework was revised. I. Disbursement Profile Original Actual 8 7 6 US $ millions 5 4 3 2 1 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 xiii 1. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design 1.1. Context at Appraisal 1. Namibia’s coast hosts a unique and fragile ecosystem. The hyper-arid Namibian coastal ecosystem is home to a significant and unique array of biological and ecological diversity, including uniquely adapted plants and animals, rich estuarine fauna and a high diversity of migratory wading and seabirds. The Namib Desert runs along the entire 1,500 km of the coast, extending beyond the Orange River into the northwestern comer of South Africa and beyond the Kunene River into the southwestern corner of Angola. Although much of the coast consists of sandy beaches with isolated outcrops, there are also significant lagoons, estuaries and riverbeds. Because the region, which is isolated between an ocean and the escarpment, is a constant island of aridity surrounded by a sea of climatic change, it has remained a relatively stable center for the evolution of numerous desert species. The Succulent Karoo biome of the southern Namib Desert has more diversity than any other desert in the world. Namibia's ocean area (580,000 km2), within the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem, has one of the highest fisheries production rates in the world and provides critical renewable natural resources for the country. 2. The coastal environment is threatened by rapid and uncontrolled development. Namibia is a middle-income country. The main sources for economic development, in particular within the four coastal regions (Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene), are resource-based. They include a rapidly growing nature-based tourism industry, an overall expanding extractive industry (oil and gas, off-shore mining) and a strong commercial fishing industry with growing aquaculture. Growing economic development and human activities along the coast are leading to unprecedented migration, bringing with it uncontrolled urban development that results in overuse and pollution of freshwater resources, an increase in industrial coastal and marine pollution, degradation of water regimes for coastal wetlands, and other land and water degradation. 3. Integrated planning is necessary to ensure the sustainability of the coastal development. At the time of appraisal, these increasing pressures on fragile ecosystems were exacerbated by the lack of integrated conservation and development planning along the Namibian coast, coupled with poor management of resources in the face of increased pressures. A lack of sound economic and environmental baseline data made it difficult for national, regional and local government to support decision making on how to define a sustainable path for coastal zone development, including the promotion of diversified livelihood options for coastal populations. 4. The World Bank was in a good position to assist Namibia in this endeavor. With its large portfolio and knowledge of coastal management, the World Bank was well placed to assist Namibia in building its integrated coastal zone management framework, promoting a sustainable resource-based growth for the country. The project also benefitted from the World Bank and the Global Environmental Facility (GEF)’s parallel engagement in the Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA) Project, approved 1 in June 2004, closed in March 2011, and aimed at supporting community-based integrated ecosystem management practices in targeted conservancies1. 5. The project was in line with the country’s higher development objectives. In 2004, Namibia launched the Vision 2030, a 30-year planning framework for sustainable development promoting the development of natural capital through strategies for the sustainable, equitable and efficient use of natural resources. It prioritized coastal governance under goal number 7: "Conservation and management of biological diversity along the coastal region of Namibia". At the time of appraisal (2005), no Country Partnership Framework between Namibia and the World Bank had been produced. The first Interim Strategy Notes dates from April 2007 and stresses the need to pursue the collaboration on environmental management and nature conservation, areas where the Bank’s track record was good and the Government’s interest was clear. 6. The project was part of Namibia’s strategy to implement two of the three major environmental United Nations conventions. Two key elements of the Government’s environmental strategy are its National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and Namibia’s Action Plan to Combat Desertification, as submitted to the Convention to Combat Desertification. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan highlighted the need for support for currently under-protected key ecosystems of biodiversity importance, adequate input into the process of zoning, development of guidelines and environmental assessment of proposed aquaculture developments, and inclusion of relevant National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan components into the regional development plans. Within the Action Plan to Combat Desertification, targeted investments, capacity building and enhancement of decentralization are regarded as key elements for halting land degradation. These were central elements to the design of the project. The activities of the Project were also fully consistent with the priorities of the GEF Operational Program 2 for Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems: (i) promoting the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity of coastal and marine resources under threat; and (ii) promoting the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components in environmentally vulnerable areas. 1.2. Original Global Environment Objectives (GEO) and Key Indicators 7. The Global Environment Objective of the project was to assist the Recipient to conserve, use sustainably and mainstream the biodiversity of the Namibian Coast. 8. The key performance indicators were: 1  The ICEMA project closed successfully and the Implementation Completion and Results Report rated the  overall outcome as satisfactory  2 (i) Increase in km2 and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance under effective management by year 5 compared to baseline situation. (ii) Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities and the proportion of their incomes derived from these activities by year 5 compared to baseline situation. (iii) Coastal biodiversity related aspects better incorporated into planning, policy, institutions and investments at national, regional and local level by year 5 compared to baseline situation. A footnote in the Project Appraisal Document further explained that marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance were meant to be marine protected areas. 1.3. Revised GEO and Key Indicators, and reasons/justification 9. The GEO was not revised during project implementation. The key indicators have been modified with the approval of an additional financing in December 2012. The first GEO indicator was deemed to measure two outcomes – the proclamation of new areas and the improved management, and was thus disaggregated into two new indicators. The unit of measure was changed from square kilometers to hectares to follow GEF standards. (i) Increase in ha and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance legally protected. (ii) Increase in score of management effectiveness for two protected areas. The second GEO indicator was found to measure two different outcomes – the increased engagement in sustainable use and the increased proportion of income. In addition, income measurement was considered difficult and not meaningful and was thus dropped. (iii) Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities supported by the project. The third GEO indicator was deemed unclear and was simplified. (iv) Increase in the number of national, regional and local plans and strategies that incorporate biodiversity issues. A final GEO level indicator was added, as newly required by the World Bank policies. (v) Direct project beneficiaries and female beneficiaries. 10. The key performance indicators were revised to improve their quality, not to account for poor performance or improve the project’s relevance. The target values which were not defined in the Project Appraisal Document, were agreed upon early in the implementation of the project and some were increased by the revision of the indicators. 3 1.4. Main Beneficiaries 11. The primary target group identified in the Project Appraisal Document are the national, regional and local stakeholders involved in coastal zones management. At the national level, these include the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication, the Ministry of Regional and Local Government, Housing and Rural Development, and the National Planning Commission. 12. It can be deduced from the project design and results that the population residing in or living off coastal ecosystems, primarily coastal communities and individuals engaged in sustainable use activities (e.g. fishing and tourism), will also benefit from the project in the long term: safeguarding healthy ecosystems and promoting sustainable use of the natural resources will ensure that these populations will be able to continue to enjoy their benefits in the future. 1.5. Original Components 13. The project was approved by the Board of Executive Directors on September 1, 2005 and consisted of four components, funded by a US$4.9 million GEF grant: 14. Component 1: Policy, legal, institutional and planning framework for integrated coastal zone management. The first component aimed at developing a modern and consistent policy and legal framework for integrated coastal zone management, consistent with national development objectives, which would take into account biodiversity conservation and management related considerations. This included: (i) reviewing existing policies and laws and supporting targeted policy and legal revisions and/or development; (ii) reviewing existing institutional mandates and supporting targeted revisions; (iii) developing the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper; and (iv) supporting the national coastal management mechanism and financial sustainability. 15. Component 2: Targeted capacity-building for integrated coastal zone management. The second component was intended to facilitate the mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity and resources into development planning, decision-making and key economic activities by addressing one of the main constraints: the lack of related capacity at the national, regional and local levels. This included: (i) awareness-raising and training for integrated coastal zone management; (ii) upgrade of the biodiversity monitoring and evaluation mechanism; and (iii) communication and knowledge management. 16. Component 3: Targeted investments in critical ecosystems for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The third component was designed to contribute to the overall framework for integrated coastal zone management by using targeted investments and activities to address on-the-ground gaps in coastal biodiversity conservation throughout the Namibian coastal and marine ecosystems, rooted in under-protected ecosystems of biodiversity importance. It aimed at sustaining and increasing economic benefits from sustainable resource-based activities in line with regional development 4 objectives. It included: (i) the management planning of coastal ecosystems of biodiversity importance; and (ii) the implementation of priority actions under the management plans at site and landscape levels. 17. Component 4: Project coordination and reporting. The last component was intended to support the establishment and operationalization (through staffing, office infrastructure and project management-related capacity building) of a Project Coordination Office, in order to ensure mainstreamed implementation of project activities by the main stakeholders. 1.6. Revised Components 18. The additional financing supported the same four components, building on and adding to the initial activities. 1.7. Other significant changes 19. During the ten years of implementation, the project underwent two restructurings and an additional financing. They are detailed in the following paragraphs. 20. The first restructuring was approved in April 2011. The project supported the proclamation of new protected areas leading to potential restrictions of access to natural resources and the triggering of OP/BP4.12 on involuntary resettlement. A Process Framework was prepared and the Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet was updated, approved and disclosed. In parallel, the closing date was extended from April 30, 2011 to April 30, 2012 to account for delays in finalizing the National Policy on Coastal Management and developing the subsequent legislation, finalizing supporting studies, completing micro- projects, and operationalizing the national coastal management mechanism. The restructuring was approved by the Country Director. 21. The second restructuring was approved in April 2012. The closing date of the project was extended a second time to December 31, 2012. This was necessary to account for delays in the adoption of the National Policy on Coastal Management by the Cabinet and to ensure the successful completion of other activities and contracts. It was also justified by the preparation of an additional financing to the project: the seven-month extension allowed to bridge the financing gap. The second restructuring was approved by the Country Director. 22. An additional financing was approved in December 2012. The additional financing, a three-year, US$1.92 million GEF grant, was designed to build-on and scale- up the results of the successful initial project. It was to finance additional activities required to implement and disseminate the recently approved National Policy on Coastal Management and assist the government in effectively managing the two protected areas which establishment in 2009 and 2010 was supported by the initial project. All activities from the initial project had been completed and the objectives achieved. The GEO remained unchanged and the initial results framework was clarified as described above. The additional financing was approved by the Board. 5 2. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes 2.1. Project Preparation, Design and Quality at Entry (a) Soundness of the background analysis 23. The preparation phase of the project was supported by a GEF Project Development Fund Block A2 grant amounting to US$25,000, signed in June 2000, and two GEF Project Development Fund Block B 3 grants amounting to US$310,000, respectively signed in December 2002 and January 2005. Preparation activities really started with the appointment of the Project Coordinator in February 2004. The concept review was held in June 2004 and the project was approved by the Board in September 2005. Effective project preparation therefore lasted 15 months. 24. Extensive background analysis were conducted during this preparation phase: (i) a policy, legal and institutional framework review helped design components 1 and 2; (ii) an action plan for the preparation of the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper, one of the key outputs of component 1, was drafted to detail the process and ensure efficient implementation; (iii) an assessment of biodiversity related management plans and projects and an environmental economic study supported the preparation of component 3, the latter also feeding into the project economic analysis; (iv) an Environmental Management Plan was prepared to ensure that the environmental risks borne by the project would be adequately managed, in line with World Bank safeguard policies; (v) a communication and participation plan was drafted to ensure that all stakeholders would be adequately involved during the implementation of the project; (vi) a monitoring and evaluation framework was drafted in consultation with the key stakeholders to ensure adequate project progress assessment; and (vii) the required financial and administrative manual was prepared. As a result, and as demonstrated in the Project Appraisal Document, the design of the project was supported by a thorough background analysis allowing a high quality at entry. 25. The project built upon the results and experience of previous projects, including an integrated coastal zone management pilot project in the Erongo region, funded by the Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development between 1997 and 2000. The pilot project, which created the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee that the NACOMA project further supported, showed that high-level support to the integrated coastal zone management process and institutions, clear operational structures for decentralized institutions and formalized institutional coordination between stakeholders were crucial to the success of the approach. Other integrated coastal management projects in the region revealed that: (i) setting up multi-lateral, multi-stakeholder technical and advisory groups takes a long time; (ii) a sustained communication and media campaign is essential to raise public awareness and garner high-level political support; (iii) involvement 2  GEF Project Development Fund Block A grants fund the very early stages of project or program  identification 3  GEF Project Development Fund Block B grants provide funding for the information gathering necessary  to complete full project proposals and the essential supporting documentation.  6 of the entire spectrum of stakeholders is key; (iv) the importance of capacity-building and institution-building should not be underestimated; and (v) transparency in decision-making and public participation in program design are critical. These lessons were incorporated in the project preparation process and design. (b) Assessment of the project design 26. The preparation of this integrated coastal zone management project made use of the best knowledge available, inside and outside the World Bank. Its design was of high quality, giving adequate weight to the legal and institutional framework, stakeholder participation, communication and capacity-building. 27. In a context of slow decentralization, the project was also proposing an interesting balance of top-down and bottom-up approaches to integrated coastal management. The top- down approach, aimed at developing a national strategy to coastal management, would have been insufficient. The bottom-up approach, addressing small-scale, site-specific issues, would have led to fragmentation of the coastal management and would have failed to provide a consistent framework. Both approaches conducted alongside the decentralization process provided a good balance of national and regionally-specific management policies and regulations. In a similar vein, the design of the project proposed an interesting mix between institution-building and capacity-building on the one hand, and targeted investments related to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems on the other hand. Activities that are visible on the ground and in line with the broader objective of the project support the less straightforward but critically important institutional processes and build buy-in among stakeholders. 28. Integrated coastal zone management is an iterative, flexible and adaptable process. This was adequately reflected in the project design, which planned for assessing and revising institutional arrangements and proposed to use the mid-term review as a trigger for required adjustments identified during the White Paper preparation process. However the White Paper preparation process itself could have been designed as more iterative. 29. As demonstrated in other similar initiatives, ensuring adequate and strong institutional arrangements is key to the success of integrated coastal zone management. This has been adequately reflected in the project design: it not only salvaged the pre- existing but poorly performing Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee, but also created a specific high-level Steering Committee to provide strategic leadership, a Scientific Group to provide high-quality expertise and create a common platform for decision-making, and a Project Coordination Office to serve as the Secretariat of the different Committees and as an ad-hoc technical advisor to the different stakeholders. 30. Overall, the project design was therefore of high quality. However, the initial results framework was less satisfactory: the GEO was too ambitious and high-level; there were numerous indicators, with 43 intermediate results indicators; most intermediate results indicators were output oriented; the three GEO-level results indicators reflected multiple outcomes and had to be rephrased during the processing of the additional financing; and their baselines and target values were to be determined during the implementation phase. 7 The results framework was substantially improved during the processing of the additional financing. (c) Adequacy of government’s commitment 31. The Government’s commitment was relatively high, as demonstrated by the solid project preparation that included frequent consultations with its stakeholders. These consultations helped build consensus among the project stakeholders on the identified issues and priorities, and the proposed project design and institutional arrangements. A project participation and communication plan was also prepared to engage all coastal stakeholders in the process of developing the integrated coastal zone management framework promoted by the project. (d) Assessment of risks 32. The assessment of risks and mitigation measures at appraisal was adequate. The key risks were identified and related mitigation measures were proposed. With hindsight, the main risk to the project objective was the slow implementation pace due to complex institutional processes, lack of capacity at different levels, and competing interests. This risk, central to integrated coastal zone management, was identified at appraisal, adequately rated moderate to significant, and its mitigation was at the heart of the project design: building high-level political support, defining and agreeing on a clear roadmap for the preparation of the legal framework, creating a highly transparent and participatory process, and regularly monitoring and closing capacity gaps with the support of a Senior Technical Advisor. Conversely, the project oversaw the difficulties stemming from a lack of implementation capacity within the Project Coordination Office during the first years of implementation, but updated the risk assessment during the mid-term review. 2.2. Implementation 33. Initial delays. The implementation of the project lasted 10 years between 2005 and 2015. Effectiveness was declared less than two months after the Board approved the project. Implementation progressed slowly during the first four years, and built up accumulative delay of approximately one year. The situation then improved significantly but the delay remained and warranted the extension of the project. Progress toward attaining the GEO and implementation progress were both rated satisfactory for the last six years of the project. 34. Project coordination difficulties. The implementation of the project suffered from poor performance of the Project Coordination Office during the first years: lack of capacity of recruited staff; weaknesses in procurement, administration, monitoring and evaluation; and staff turnover that left positions unfilled for months, including the Project Coordinator position. As a result, the implementation of the activities was slower than expected, the procurement was rated moderately unsatisfactory after the first post review, and the preparation of the monitoring and evaluation framework was seriously delayed. 8 35. Mid-term review. A mid-term review was conducted in March 2009 4 and concluded that overall project implementation was making good progress towards meeting the objective of the project, despite the implementation capacity gap within the Project Coordination Office. It noted that the project objective and design remained relevant and identified a new risk related to ensuring full and qualified Project Coordination Office staffing, at a moment where the Project Coordinator resigned. The mid-term review recommended addressing the implementation capacity gap as the first priority and this recommendation was followed: a new Project Coordinator was appointed (the former Senior Technical Advisor), as well as new Senior Technical Advisor, Monitoring and Technical Specialist, and Administrative Assistant. Implementation progressed rapidly afterwards and was rated satisfactory until the end of the project. 36. First phase final evaluation. The Government of Namibia undertook an evaluation of the project at the end of the first phase (i.e. before the additional financing) and found it successful. Mostly focused on assessing the results of the project, it also noted its strategic relevance for the coast of Namibia and its important results to date. It recommended to avoid dispersion and concentrate the project on fewer, promising activities. This was adequately taken into account in the additional financing, which limited its support to the implementation the National Policy for Coastal Management, the continuation of the training and communication activities, and a small number of selected investments to implement the protected areas management plans. 37. Restructurings. The project underwent two restructurings and an additional financing, detailed in section 1.7. Difficulties encountered during the early phase of the project, later delays in having the National Policy for Coastal Management approved and matching grants disbursed, and the need to avoid a financing gap between the initial project and the additional financing required two extensions totaling 20 months (from April 2011 to December 2012). 2.3. Monitoring and Evaluation Design, Implementation and Utilization 38. Monitoring and evaluation design. The Project Appraisal Document detailed the monitoring and evaluation arrangements, but the finalization and implementation of the related strategy took place eighteen months after the project was approved. The GEO was excessively ambitious for the relatively limited scope of the project and in the context of specific constraints to the sustainable coastal management described in the first section of this document. The initial results framework comprised 3 GEO-level results indicators and 43 intermediate results indicators. Each GEO-level results indicator measured multiple outcomes and some were difficult to measure. The intermediate results were numerous and to a large extent output-oriented. Baseline data and target values were lacking, and were provided through specific studies during the first two years of the project. The additional 4  It is unclear why the mid‐term review was postponed to three years and a half after the effectiveness of  the project was declared. It is assumed that it was because the project was progressing slower than  planned.  9 financing was used to clarify and simplify the results framework, resulting in 5 clear GEO- level results indicators directly measuring the achievement of the GEO, and limiting the intermediate results indicators to ten. 39. Monitoring and evaluation implementation. After initial difficulties and delays due to a lack of capacity within the Project Coordination Office, the project monitoring and evaluation framework was finalized during implementation and a specific strategy was issued. The Project Coordination Office developed a Management Information System around March 2007 that allowed for significant efficiency gains in the monitoring and evaluation. The monitoring and evaluation framework was implemented adequately, with the support of a dedicated staff within the Project Coordination Office and consultants appointed on an ad-hoc basis, for the mid-term review and the final evaluations for instance. The reporting of results and indicators data was regularly documented in the Aide-memoires, with some exceptions including the percentage of female beneficiaries and the NAMETT scores at project closing. 40. Monitoring and evaluation utilization. The monitoring and evaluation data on project progress were used to identify delays in the implementation of some activities, especially the matching grants and the White Paper. These were shared during the regular high-level Steering Committees, which allowed for the proper corrective actions to be decided and implemented – especially on the institutional processes. The Project Coordination Office will remain in function beyond the end of the project and the monitoring and evaluation arrangements in place will serve the continued implementation of integrated coastal zone management in the country. Furthermore, the project results framework was complemented with a set of monitoring and evaluation tools for coastal and biodiversity management: it supported the upgrading of the existing coastal and marine biodiversity monitoring and evaluation system, linking it with other national monitoring efforts to reduce overlaps and redundancies. 2.4. Safeguard and Fiduciary Compliance 41. Safeguards. There were no safeguard issues during project implementation. The project was considered category B (site-specific, reversible potential impacts) at appraisal and its initial design triggered Operational Policy / Bank Policy (OP/BP) 4.01 on Environmental Impact Assessment. An Environmental Management Plan was adopted before appraisal to address, inter alia, the potential environmental issues that had been identified during preparation. Because the project supported the gazetting of two new protected areas, the Government and the World Bank decided to trigger OP/BP4.12 on Involuntary Resettlement during the mid-term review (March 2009). A Process Framework was prepared by the Government and approved by the World Bank in 2010. A specific safeguards implementation support mission was conducted by the World Bank team in September 2010, noting that the Process Framework required improvement. A final version was approved and disclosed in April 2011. The triggering of OP/BP4.12 was formally registered in an updated Integrated Safeguards Data Sheet in April 2011, during the first restructuring. There were no dedicated safeguards staff among the Project Coordination Office team, but it was part of the roles of the Environment Officers and the Senior Technical Advisor to provide assistance to the coastal stakeholders on preparing 10 environmental assessments and implementing environmental management plans. The supervision of the safeguards aspects was regular and documented in most Aide-memoires. 42. Financial Management. The implementing agency maintained adequate financial management arrangements and there were no major financial management issues. The implementing agency was adequately staffed for carrying out the financial management functions at all times. The interim financial reports submitted to and reviewed by the Bank during implementation were found satisfactory, in a format acceptable to the Bank, and with minor or no issues identified. Acceptable annual audit reports were received and no major internal control weaknesses were reported. 43. Procurement. The management of procurement activities was the responsibility of the implementing agency, which was adequately staffed with a full time procurement officer. However, during the first two years, procurement suffered from a lack of capacity of the procurement officer. The first post-review mission, held in March 2007, identified issues in all the contracts it reviewed and concluded that the procurement was moderately unsatisfactory. Specific training and technical assistance from the Bank team helped resolve the situation and no major procurement issues were noted later in the implementation period of the project. The procurement of works, goods and consulting services was carried out in accordance with the World Bank Procurement Guidelines. 2.5. Post-completion Operation/Next Phase 44. Institutionalization of integrated coastal zone management. The project finalized most of its activities before it closed in December 2015, and there will not be a next phase. The only pending task is the adoption of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill by the Parliament, which will establish a Coastal Management Authority. The Authority will take over the coordination of the coastal zone management from the NACOMA Project Coordination Office and will therefore be key to the sustainability of the project outcomes. As of May 2016, the Bill was still pending Cabinet approval. It should be noted however that the National Planning Commission and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism allocated N$2.5 million (US$160,000 equivalent) to the continued but reduced functioning of the NACOMA Project Coordination Office to ensure an appropriate transition phase. 3. Assessment of Outcomes 3.1. Relevance of Objectives, Design and Implementation 45. The relevance of objectives, design and implementation is rated substantial. 46. The relevance of objectives is rated high. The overall objective of the project to conserve, use sustainably and mainstream biodiversity of the Namibian coast remains very relevant at project closing. The adoption of the National Policy on Coastal Management in 2012 and the pending adoption of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill evidence the current significance of the project objectives. Namibia’s Vision 2030, which prioritizes conservation and management of biological diversity along the coastal region of Namibia, is still valid and the project was once more included in Namibia’s updated National 11 Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2013-2022). The most recent Country Partnership Strategy (2014-2017) confirms the Bank’s support in environment and natural resource management, to help ensure that benefits of Namibia’s desert and marine ecosystem are shared widely. It specifically refers to the project and includes related outcomes in its results matrix. The project activities are still fully consistent with the GEF Operational Program 2 for Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. The relevance of the objective was also attested during implementation, and increasing pressures on the coasts from the mining industry and tourism activities confirmed the need for better management through institutional coordination and capacity-building. 47. The relevance of design is rated substantial. The design of the project proved very relevant too, allowing for the flexibility and reactivity necessary for the implementation of integrated coastal zone management and to adapt to evolving pressures on the coasts and unforeseen demands from different stakeholders (e.g. ministries, municipalities, private sector). The project design was of high quality, building on thorough background analyses and lessons learned from other projects. The initial results framework included numerous indicators, was incomplete and sometimes unclear but was improved during implementation and additional financing. With hindsight, the project design could have anticipated the long processes of policy and legislation adoption by planning for a longer implementation period and prioritizing the related activities during the first year of implementation. 48. The relevance of implementation is rated substantial. The implementation arrangements, favoring high-level political commitment and adaptability to changing priorities, were appropriate. The Project Coordination Office was able to progressively operate as the coastal management body, laying the ground for the institutionalization of integrated coastal zone management in the country. The project made good use of restructurings to account for some delays in implementation, and the additional financing very appropriately consolidated the results of a successful first phase and attempted to bring the coastal policy to the next level. In addition, the implementation of the project activities proved highly reactive and adaptable to the evolving context and rising issues, such as uncontrolled tourism damage in the Dune Belt area and the misinformed approval of mining concessions on the coast. 3.2. Achievement of Global Environmental Objectives 49. The project was successful in achieving its Global Environment Objective to assist the Recipient to conserve, use sustainably and mainstream the biodiversity of the Namibian Coast. This objective can be split into three equally important sub-objectives, reflecting the five key performance indicators. The following description follows this 3-sub-objective approach. 12 Objective 1: Conserve coastal biodiversity Related GEO-level results indicators:  Increase in ha and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance legally protected.  Increase in score of management effectiveness for two protected areas. 50. The achievement of this objective is rated substantial. 51. One of the major achievements of the project was to directly support the proclamation of three national parks in Namibia. As a result, the entire Namibian coast is now protected under a mega-park, the Namib-Skeleton Coast National Park, covering almost 11 million hectares: the sixth largest terrestrial national park and the largest in Africa (see map at the end of this report). The project supported the research, studies and consultation process that led to the proclamation of the parks. By doing so, it exceeded its target of 10 million hectares of protected areas in Namibia. Although this indicator is only an indirect measure of biodiversity conservation, the new national parks host many endemic species and unique ecosystems and provide sanctuary and breeding grounds for endangered species, as described below. By establishing these parks and protecting these coastal areas, the objective of conserving biodiversity is substantially achieved. 52. Sperrgebiet/Tsau//Khaeb National Park was proclaimed in 2008 and covers 2,600,000 ha of globally important semi-desert along the southern coast of Namibia, forming part of the succulent Karoo biome that extends to South Africa. One of the world’s top biodiversity hotpsots, it hosts many endemic succulent species as well as the Orange River mouth, an internationally renowned Ramsar site where the reed beds and tidal mudflats protect vast numbers of resident and migrant birds. Most of the park territory is still restricted to diamond mining. Some areas are progressively opening up to limited and sustainable tourism activities. 53. Namibia’s first marine protected area, the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Areas, was gazetted in 2009 to protect almost one million hectares of coastal waters and sea around 18 islands and islets. These islands provide sanctuary to a considerable variety of life, in the midst of the Benguela Current upwelling system, including shelter and breeding grounds for the west-coast rock lobster, the southern right whale, and the Heaviside dolphin. Humpback whales, dusky dolphins, minke whales, southern right whale dolphins and killer whales are also regularly seen. The islands also provide breeding grounds for 11 out of 14 Namibian seabirds, including the endangered African penguins and 90% of the world’s endangered Bank Cormorants. Buffer zones, sub-divided into four degrees of protection, encompass the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Areas, providing high protection status for specific islands, rock lobster and line fishing sanctuaries, and limiting certain harmful effects caused by marine mining activities. 54. Dorob National Park, a 200km-long and 25km-wide strip that extends from Walvis Bay to the Ugab River, was proclaimed in 2010. It surrounds the fast-growing cities of 13 Walvis Bay, Swakopmund and Henties Bay, and hosts some of Namibia’s biggest economic contributors, namely mining and fishing. The park includes the Walvis Bay Ramsar Site and encompasses a spectacular coastal dune belt, vast gravel plains, Namibia’s richest coastal area for birds, rich botanical diversity, and major ephemeral river systems and their river mouths. It also provides breeding sites for the endemic Damara Tern seabird as well as some of the most extensive lichen fields in the world, both threatened by poorly managed coastal development and mining, and uncontrolled off-road driving. 55. In parallel, the project helped improve the governance of the coastal protected areas, through the preparation of management plans, training, monitoring and evaluation, and the provision of matching grants to support their implementation. It developed draft management and development plans for three coastal protected areas (Skeleton Coast National Park, Dorob National Park and Namib-Naukluft National Park), which were later approved by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. In collaboration with sister projects such as the Strengthening the Protected Areas Network Project 5 , NACOMA also contributed to the improvement of the management effectiveness of institutions that are responsible for coastal resources management through training, targeted capacity building initiatives, ad hoc support to the preparation and implementation of contingency plans (e.g. for the Dune Belt), and targeted matching grant investments in park infrastructure. 56. The project supported the evaluation of the different national parks in 2011, using the Namibia Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (NAMETT)6 and adapting it to the context of marine protected areas. It ranked Sperrgebiet/Tsau//Khaeb National Park, Namib-Naukluft National Park and Dorob National Park as high, and Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area as good. However, it showed that the management of Skeleton Coast National Park was low, with poor monitoring of work plans, limited PA management skills among staff and generally low budgets. Coordination among various stakeholders in the coastal zone was also adjudged to be poor resulting in less effective management. Similarly, the management effectiveness of Cape Cross Seal Reserve was ranked as intermediate. The support of the project to integrated coastal zone management and to the implementation of the various management plans is expected to have helped improve management in these protected areas, but the new NAMETT evaluation, initially planned for 2015, is pending. 57. The project was not able to reach its target for the second GEO-level results indicator, which was to increase the management effectiveness score of Dorob National Park from 58 to 70 and of Namibian Islands Marine Protected Areas from 93 to 115. The project put significant efforts towards improving the management of the Dorob National Park it helped to create, including through demarcation and the provision of specific matching grants of N$1.6 million (US$100,000 equivalent). However, staff and budget 5  Funded by the United Nations Development Programme and the Global Environment Facility  6  The country, through the Strengthening the Protected Areas Network project, adapted the standard  Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) to the Namibian context and created the NAMETT,  allowing for regular monitoring and evaluation of the effective management of the various protected  areas.  14 provided by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism was deemed insufficient and the management score increased to 63 but did not reach the target of 70. These scores are to be updated in 2016. 58. The rating of the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area improved from 95 to 101.5 but could not achieve the set target of 115 due to the lack of an approved management plan and a shortfall of permanent staff. A specific matching grant of N$510,000 (US$33,000 equivalent) supported the establishment of the park and the effective implementation of the management and monitoring plans. Objective 2: Increase sustainable use of coastal biodiversity Related GEO-level results indicator: Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities supported by the project. 59. The achievement of this objective is rated modest. 60. This second objective was indirectly supported by the two other objectives: increased sustainable use of the coastal biodiversity (second objective) was made feasible by its enhanced protection (first objective) and the improved mainstreaming of environmental consideration in coastal management (third objective, below). It also benefitted from specific investments in the form of matching grants that supported more sustainable activities related to the use of natural resources and to tourism. A total of twelve matching grants, amounting to N$9.9 million (US$640,000 equivalent), were provided by the project. Six of them supported more sustainable use of coastal biodiversity, totaling N$6.7 million (US$430,000 equivalent), mostly investing in sustainable tourism infrastructure and conservancies. The other six were aiming at improving the management of protected areas, as described above. 61. In 2011, a specific study 7 categorized resource use along the coast and listed sustainable use activities: mostly tourism, some fishing, fish processing, aquaculture and salt production. It assessed that approximately 21,000 people were engaged in sustainable use activities, compared to 15,000 in 2007. By the end of the project, this number increased to more than 33,000. The target set up by the outcome indicator, a 20% increase, was therefore significantly exceeded. However, the relevance of this indicator is debatable. The definition of what activities are sustainable is rather loose and arguable: most activities are actually sub-sectors (e.g. coastal tourism, commercial offshore fishing) and are taken as a whole; and their sustainability is somewhat conjectured and not grounded on solid assessments. Furthermore, variations in the number of people involved in sustainable use activities depend on many external factors and is not attributable to the project. 7  J. Barnes and M. Alberts, 2011. Assessment of Peoples’ Engagement in Sustainable Use Activities on the  Coastal Zone of Namibia (Final Report).  15 62. The implementation of matching grants was significantly delayed during the first phase of the project, two of them were cancelled and most of them required the extension and the additional financing in order to be completed. This was due to overambitious feasibility assessments and business plans, failure to mobilize matching resources, and insufficient commitment by the beneficiaries. A consultant was hired in late 2009 to assist potential applicants with the development of project proposals, which resulted in improving their quality and the timeliness of their implementation. Objective 3: Mainstream coastal biodiversity Related GEO-level results indicator: Increase in the number of national, regional and local plans and strategies that incorporate biodiversity issues. 63. The achievement of this objective is rated substantial. 64. Another central achievement of the project was the adoption by the Namibian Government of the National Policy on Coastal Management, the first institutional milestone of integrated coastal zone management in the country. The process to review the related institutional framework, prepare the Green Paper and White Paper in a transparent and participatory manner, and finally have the Cabinet adopt the Policy, was longer than expected and was only finalized in September 2012, seven years after it started. The project capitalized on this success and used the additional financing to prepare the related Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill. The Bill has been submitted to the Cabinet Committee on Legislation for clearance before it will be discussed in the National Assembly and the National Council. The Bill is expected to be adopted in 2016, which will be a great achievement of the project. Because it will create the Coastal Management Authority that will take over from the NACOMA Project Coordination Office, it will also be critical to the future implementation of integrated coastal zone management in the country and the sustainability of the project’s outcomes. 65. This legal framework provides the institutional basis for the integrated management of coastal resources. The project also supported improving the mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal management, providing technical assistance to the preparation, review or update of a wide array of planning documents. This included: the development of Strategic Environmental Assessment for all the four coastal regions in 2012 and their review and update in 2015; the review of Environmental Impact Assessment reports for various coastal developments and their accompanying Environmental Management Plans; the update of the State of the Environment Report; the preparation of several land use plans and tourism development plans; the update of marine tourism regulations, the drafting of the waste management policy and the sensitivity maps for the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan; and the development of the second National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan. These documents are mostly of excellent quality, but their utilization in coastal planning could not be assessed for this report. 66. A third pillar of this environmental mainstreaming was training, capacity building, communication and awareness raising, and was given central attention in the project. It developed a specific training and capacity building strategy and action plan targeting 16 national and local governments, environmental and coastal development managers, communities, private sector, non-governmental organizations etc., in areas such as environmental education, community-based natural resources management, strategic environmental assessment, environmental impact assessment, geographic information systems, law enforcement and resource economics. A total of 694 people were trained by the project. In parallel, it also supported awareness-raising on coastal environment and management among various sectors of the coastal community. Newspaper articles, up-to- date and informative website, radio programs and advertisements, and education material have been produced and disseminated widely among the coastal communities and the wider Namibian population, with a specific focus on schools. More than three hundred communication activities have been conducted, leading to an enhanced awareness of the implications of development decisions on the environment among large sections of the public in the region. 3.3. Efficiency 67. The efficiency is rated substantial. Consistent with the requirements for stand- alone GEF projects, the Project Appraisal Document included an incremental cost analysis rather than the estimation of a net present value or economic rate of return in a cost-benefit analysis. In light of this, efficiency is assessed by: (i) the results at project closure of the incremental cost analysis proposed in the Project Appraisal Document; (ii) the results of an independent economic assessment conducted at the end of the original grant; and (iii) efficiency in project design and management. 68. The incremental cost analysis proposed in the Project Appraisal Document argued that, without the GEF alternative (i.e. the project), the conservation of coastal biodiversity would have remained weak and insufficient, and that disconnection between economic development, population growth, and local, regional and national economic development planning on one hand, and from biodiversity protection on the other hand, would have led to a persistent degradation of high-value, unique biodiversity and natural resources and a subsequent loss of opportunities for sustainable coastal zones management. The cost of the baseline scenario was estimated at US$50.12 million and the incremental cost of the GEF alternative was estimated at US$6.82 million, both including the additional financing. US$55.76 (111.3%) of baseline co-financing materialized by the end of the project, which maximized synergies with parallels projects. The GEF grants covered the total incremental cost and were almost fully disbursed (99.7%). It is clear in retrospect that the considerable achievements of the project would not have been achieved without it, at least not in the medium term, and this despite the relatively small size of the financing. The project outcomes, through enhanced biodiversity conservation, use and mainstreaming, yield considerable global environmental benefits linked to: (i) improving the sustainability of protected area systems and the conservation of species, habitats and landscapes of global significance; and (ii) reducing pressures on natural resources by managing competing land uses in broader landscapes. The developmental pressure that took place along the coast of Namibia in the last decade also confirmed that the assessment made at appraisal was valid, if not conservative. 17 69. At the end of the initial grant, the project commissioned an independent economic assessment of its impacts, focusing on the people’s engagement in sustainable use activities along the coast of Namibia. 8 It showed that in 2011 the tourism sector on the coast performed better than projected in 2007, with annual employment growth rates reaching 8% to 9%, significantly more than the predicted 5%. Similarly, coastal tourism’s contribution to the gross national income grew by an annual average of 8%. Namibia as a whole is one of the fastest growing tourism destination in the world, with 6% average annual growth rates of both the tourism revenues and the foreign arrivals between 2010 and 2014. 9 It is difficult to attribute the growth in coastal tourism employment to the project. However, considering its numerous contributions to the development of coastal tourism, including the expansion of the coastal protected area network, the development of tourism management plans and the support to tourism investments, it is reasonable to assume that it significantly contributed to the growth in coastal tourism. 70. While it is difficult to assess the efficiency of such a policy- and biodiversity- oriented project in absolute terms, it should also be noted that the project was designed in a cost efficient manner, optimizing synergies with other projects on biodiversity indicators or training, and avoiding duplication of efforts through institutional mainstreaming and integrated management. There were no cost overruns, no misprocurement, the project closed on time at the end of the additional financing period, and the actual project overheads (component 4) were 14% lower than the appraisal value, highlighting an efficient project management. On a different aspect, making use of an additional financing allowed for significant results with very small additional transaction costs since all the institutional mechanisms, staff and knowledge were in place. 3.4. Justification of Overall Outcome Rating 71. As stated above, the relevance of objectives, design and implementation is rated substantial; the achievement of objectives is rated substantial for two objectives and modest for one; and the efficiency is rated substantial. Consistent with these ratings, the overall outcome is rated satisfactory. Despite not achieving one out of five GEO-level results indicator, the project was successful in making major contributions to conservation and sustainable use of natural resources along the coast of Namibia in a very challenging context of competing demands on these resources and fragmented political authority to govern them. The extension of protected areas along the entire coast of the country and the adoption of the National Policy for Coastal Management and subsequent submission of the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill to Cabinet are among the most outstanding of these contributions. The project objectives and design remain extremely relevant for the development of the country. 8  Ibid.  9  Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Tourist Statistical Report 2014.  18 4. Assessment of Risk to Global Environment Outcome 72. The risk to development outcome is substantial for the following reasons. 73. The first major outcome of the project is the creation of a framework for integrated coastal zone management that aims at providing the forum, the rules and the tools to mainstream the preservation of natural resources in coastal development planning. The main risk to this development outcome comes from the pending adoption of the related Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill and the creation of the Coastal Management Authority. Because the NACOMA Project Coordination Office was de facto acting as the Coastal Management Authority and because it is assumed that it will be transformed into such a formal Authority once the Bill is passed, this delay creates a financing and implementation gap between the end of the project and the creation of the Authority. The Government, through the National Planning Commission and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, committed N$2,500,000 (US$160,000 equivalent) to finance reduced operations of the Project Coordination Office until March 31, 2017. Additional delays might jeopardize the transition, critical to the sustainability of the project outcomes. 74. Furthermore, the coast of Namibia is under considerable development pressure and its continued sustainable management will require significant engagement from the different levels of Government. Although the Government displayed above average levels of commitment under the project, demonstrating leadership and providing counterpart financing to its operations, the sustainability of this commitment is uncertain without the external nudge exerted by the World Bank. 75. The second major outcome is the extension of the coverage of protected areas along the entire coast of Namibia. Once more, the project created the conditions for a better conservation of coastal biodiversity, providing the financing and technical assistance to improve the management effectiveness of these protected areas, and the tools to measure it. However, the sustained or improved management of these areas will also require persistent leadership and support from the Government. The newly created protected areas add on to an already vast network, which management is relatively expensive and boasts specific challenges linked to remoteness, competing demands for natural resources, and poverty alleviation. The sustainability of the improved conservation of biodiversity might therefore be jeopardized by insufficient management of the protected areas. Although the collaboration between the Government and the World Bank on biodiversity conservation came to an end with the closure of this project, several technical and financial partners are supporting Namibia in this effort and it is anticipated that protected area management will be given adequate attention in the near future. 76. The project also increased the awareness of the Namibian population on the benefits of integrated coastal zone management, in particular its economic benefits and the services it renders. The link between sustainable use of natural resources and job creation, for instance, has been evidenced and publicized. The large diffusion of educative material on the coastal environment, threats and opportunities and the specific focus on schools achieved a level of public and governmental awareness that is expected to increase the attention to coastal biodiversity for the long term. 19 77. Some matching grants faced either a lack of ownership from the beneficiaries or problematic financial sustainability of the investments. For these matching grants, the risk that their outcome is not sustained is significant. For instance, the project noted that: the Damara Tern Fencing suffered from inadequate maintenance after it was completed; operational costs of the Walvis Bay Bird Paradise are high and the beneficiaries lack commitment, jeopardizing its sustainability; and the Kuiseb Delta Development Project will need more support and capacity before it becomes sustainable. It should be noted that the fact that the Project Coordination Office will pursue its activities for another year will reduce this risk in the near future, as it will help ensure that the necessary training, completion of activities and handing over are accomplished. 5. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance 5.1. Bank (a) Bank Performance in Ensuring Quality at Entry 78. The Bank performance in ensuring quality at entry is rated satisfactory. The Bank supported a preparation of mostly high quality, using the results and lessons learned from a previous pilot project, conducting thorough background analyses and extensive consultations, and ensuring buy-in from the different levels of Government. As a result, the preparation clarified the main issues and priorities related to sustainable coastal management and it ensured that the understanding of these issues and priorities was shared among the different stakeholders. Building such a common understanding was very important for the subsequent implementation of the project and helped create the commitment from various actors necessary to a successful integrated coastal zone management framework. One of the only shortcomings of the preparation was the design of the results framework, which lesser quality was described earlier. Preparation lasted 15 months, less than the average for World Bank projects in Africa at the time. This quality at entry was made possible by the use of GEF Project Development Fund grants to the Government and an efficient sharing of Bank costs between several parallel projects. (b) Quality of Supervision 79. The Bank performance in ensuring quality of supervision is rated satisfactory. The Bank team provided a useful training on all fiduciary aspects to the Project Coordination Office after a prompt effectiveness. However the implementation support missions were distant after that and the first, short procurement post review took place in March 2007, despite assessing the procurement risks as high during preparation. It identified issues in all the reviewed contracts and rated procurement as unsatisfactory. These oversights might have contributed to the difficulties encountered by the Project Coordination Office during the first years of implementation of the project. The Bank however promptly identified this shortcoming and increased the quality of its supervision. By mid-term review the performance of the project was on track and Bank supervision was satisfactory. Four Task Team Leaders succeeded each other during the implementation period, but the transitions were managed smoothly and did not seem to affect project implementation. During the additional financing, the experience of the Project Coordination Office and the quality of its project management allowed the Bank team to reduce its supervision effort without 20 jeopardizing the implementation of the project, thus optimizing the scarce implementation support resources provided by the GEF. In the same vein, the Bank team shared its implementation support costs between different parallel projects during most of the project life, increasing its efficiency. Finally, the use of an additional financing was particularly judicious in extending the ambition of a successful project at minimal additional cost. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Bank Performance 80. The overall Bank performance is rated satisfactory. 5.2. Borrower (a) Government Performance 81. The Government performance is rated satisfactory. Government ownership and commitment was critical to the success of the project. Although this commitment took some time to materialize fully, it was deemed satisfactory by the mid-term review (March 2009) and was sustained thereafter. Implementation capacity was not always sufficient, including at regional and local levels, but it increased during the project and allowed for the achievements listed earlier. A sign of this strong commitment, national and regional Governments provided regular co-financing to the project, although often late. They will also finance the operations of the Project Coordination Office beyond project closing and until March 2017. 82. The implementation of the project has been delayed by processes related to the decentralization of authority and approval of the National Policy on Coastal Management and the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Bill. These processes took longer than anticipated. These delays do not reflect a lack of commitment, though, but rather the relatively standard difficulties in advancing political, cross-sectorial and law reform processes. Conversely, the fact that the management effectiveness rating for Dorob National Park did not reach its target was assessed as being due to insufficient staff complement and budget allocation from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. (b) Implementing Agency or Agencies Performance 83. The implementing agency performance is rated satisfactory. The implementing agency played a critical role in the preparation of the project, organizing extensive stakeholder consultations and efficiently coordinating the numerous preparatory studies. The Project Coordination Office faced difficulties during the first years of implementation, some of which were due to the novelty of World Bank processes to the staff and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Insufficient capacity within the Project Coordination Office and the resignation of the Project Coordinator led to a limited 34% disbursement after 3 years and a half of implementation and a 1-year cumulative delay in the implementation of most activities. Operational costs were the only fully disbursed financial category. The situation rapidly improved after the mid-term review (March 2009), with the replacement of part of the team and the progressive building of its capacity. Implementation progress was rated satisfactory in April 2010 and has been sustained since. In the last five years of the project, the Project Coordination Office and the Ministry of 21 Environment and Tourism displayed exemplary ownership of the project objectives and activities, and efficiency in coordinating its implementation. (c) Justification of Rating for Overall Borrower Performance 84. The overall Borrower performance is rated satisfactory. 6. Lessons Learned 85. The project evidenced some key aspects of a successful integrated coastal zone management effort, as detailed in section 2.1 (b): (i) a very strong analytical foundation; (ii) continuous transparency and extensive stakeholders consultations; (iii) a design that allowed for an iterative, flexible and adaptable process; (iv) special attention to strong institutional arrangements and high-level commitment; (v) an emphasis on capacity- building and awareness-raising; (vi) a mix of top-down and bottom-up approaches to coastal management; and (vii) a balance between biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. On this last point, combining targeted investments with more standard institution-building and capacity-building created buy-in among stakeholders, showcasing visible, on-the-ground activities and supporting less straightforward but critically important institutional processes. 86. Mainstreaming biodiversity requires time to yield results. The experience from the project showed that it requires changing the mindsets of populations, decision-makers and institutions, which itself requires evidence-gathering, capacity-building, awareness- raising and advocacy. It also involves policy formulation, extensive consultations, and political endorsement, which are time-consuming and dependent upon many external factors. Allocating sufficient time in the project design and starting these processes as early as possible are therefore important to avoid having to extend the project. Additional financing can also be a useful tool to phase the investment and trigger the second installment based on the conclusion of political processes, for instance. 87. Simplicity can be the key to the success of ambitious projects. The NACOMA project was ambitious, successful, and simple. The project achieved to create the framework for integrated coastal zone management almost from scratch and significantly extend the protected area network in Namibia. It did so with a limited number of key objectives, avoided dispersion of efforts among too many activities, used existing implementation frameworks when possible, and was able to focus the attention of its many stakeholders on a simple message. Its relative simplicity was certainly a key factor of its success. 88. Matching grants can prove more difficult to implement than anticipated. The design and implementation of the targeted investments funded by matching grants suffered from a relative lack of attention during project preparation and implementation. This led to quality shortcomings, delays, cancellations of some of the grants and lack of ownership of others. Corrective measures were taken towards the end of the first phase to improve the quality and timeliness of the investments. With hindsight, the difficulty of preparing and implementing these matching grants has been overlooked and it would have been useful to 22 devote more attention to this important pillar of the project. Such attention could have included pre-identification of potential investments, hiring of dedicated support staff from the beginning of the project, and specific awareness-raising and capacity-building. 89. The leadership provided by a strong implementing agency needs to be sustained beyond project closing. The performance of the Project Coordination Office was critical to the success of the project in the second half of its implementation period. It displayed the leadership, efficiency, coordination and technical expertise necessary to implement the nascent integrated coastal zone management framework. It is however clear at project closing that the Project Coordination Office is now the coastal management champion in the country and that the sustainability of the project’s achievement would be greatly jeopardized if it was to close. Projects aiming at mainstreaming biodiversity (or other aspects) require champions to foster the process, but they also need to plan for the handing over of this championship before the end of the project if its results are to be sustained. 7. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners (a) Borrower/implementing agencies: Annex 5 summarizes the comments made by the Borrower on the draft ICR. In light of the Borrower’s suggestion, it was decided to increase the “implementing agency performance” rating from moderately satisfactory to satisfactory. Consequently, the “overall Borrower performance” was increased from moderately satisfactory to satisfactory. (b) Cofinanciers: N/A (c) Other partners and stakeholders: N/A 23 Annex 1. Project Costs and Financing (a) Project Cost by Component (in US$ Million equivalent) Actual/Latest Appraisal Estimate Percentage of Components Estimate (US$ millions) Appraisal (US$ millions) Component 1 0.92 1.22 132.3% Component 2 1.63 1.95 119.4% Component 3 2.80 2.37 84.5% Component 4 1.48 1.28 86.3% Total Baseline Cost 6.83 6.80 99.7% Physical Contingencies 0.00 0.00 - Price Contingencies 0.00 0.00 - Total Project Costs 6.83 6.80 99.7% Project Preparation Facility (PPF) 0.00 0.00 - Front-end fee IBRD 0.00 0.00 - Total Financing Required 6.83 6.80 99.7% (b) Financing Appraisal Actual/Latest Type of Percentage of Source of Funds Estimate Estimate Cofinancing Appraisal (US$ millions) (US$ millions) Global Environment Facility (GEF) 6.83 6.80 99.7% 24 Annex 2. Outputs by Component Component 1 – Policy, legal, institutional and planning framework for integrated coastal zone management (1.1) Review of existing policies and laws and support for targeted policy and legal revisions and/or development Description: Existing policies and Outputs: legislation, from which respective ‐ Review of policies and legislation ordinances derive mandates to set pertaining to coastal zone management regulations for coast-relevant activities, ‐ Analysis of institutional capacity in the result in an overlap in the jurisdictional Namibian coastal Regional Councils in remits of key line ministries, such as relation to the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism, decentralization process Ministry of Mines and Energy, Ministry ‐ Development of an option paper on of Fisheries and Marine Resources and policy and legal aspects for the coastal Ministry of Agriculture, Water and zones management Forestry, as well as other regional and ‐ Preparation of guidelines for Strategic local stakeholders (Regional Councils, Environmental Assessments Local Authorities, etc.). This sub- ‐ Support to the development and component will support a review of- and implementation of the Environmental appropriate amendments to relevant Management Act and regulations, in legislation and policies to ensure their particular on the decentralization consistency with principles of aspects ICZM and with the results from Sub- component 1.2 (clear definition of jurisdictional areas and mandates for these line ministries). Importantly, this sub-component will provide Ministry of Environment and Tourism with targeted support and technical assistance in establishing the scope and process of measures related to Strategic Environmental Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment, critical instruments to enable and support ICZM and mainstreaming of biodiversity under the forthcoming Environmental Management Act. (1.2) Review of existing institutional mandates and support for targeted revisions Description: This sub-component will Outputs: provide technical analysis and input to ‐ Consultative processes and review, clarify, revise and harmonize the documentation of mandates completed current roles and mandates of key ‐ Setting up of a Joint Technical stakeholders at various levels. It supports Committee, including Ministry of in particular a shift from centralized to Environment and Tourism and regional and local management of Ministry of Fisheries and Marine biodiversity and coastal resources through Resources 25 their mainstreaming into the ongoing ‐ Support to the identification and decentralization process (in particular proposition of a permanent Namibia decentralization of Ministry of coastal zone management entity, in the Environment and Tourism's form of a Coastal Management environmental management functions). Authority to be created by the The clarification and harmonization of promulgation of the ICZM Bill institutional mandates will be particularly relevant for the streamlining of decision- making processes at regional and local level (i.e. Regional Development Coordination Committees and Sub- Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committees/local fora), the consultative Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee and the anticipated future National Coastal Management Mechanism to facilitate mainstreaming of coastal biodiversity considerations into sectoral policies and actions by the time of closing of the Project. Overlap of mandates of national line Ministries will also be reviewed. (1.3) Development of the Namibia Coastal Management White Paper Description: Together with Sub- Outputs: components 1.1 and 1.2, this sub- ‐ Namibia Coastal Management White component supports the development of a Paper developed in a highly highly participatory national coastal transparent and participatory process, vision and ICZM policy framework, the and approved by the Ministry of Namibia Coastal Management White Environment and Tourism Paper, to guide national, regional and ‐ Related National Policy on Coastal local planning and management Management developed and approved processes. This sub-component includes by Cabinet the organization of a series of broad- based stakeholder consultations and facilitated workshops. Based on an option paper, developed by thematic expert groups and the consultative process, it will set out principles, objectives and substantive content relating to coastal resource conservation, development planning, socio-economic issues and enforcement. It will emphasize the need to expand access to economic benefits from coastal resources for local communities (e.g. in the tourism and aquaculture sectors) while enforcing the 26 protection of areas of national and global interest, including wetlands and fragile watersheds. Namibia Coastal Management White Paper will facilitate the Government of Namibia’s commitment to ICZM by providing basic principles and components to integrate into future National Development Plans and associated Regional Development Plans, consistent with the goals of Vision 2030. An outline of the proposed Namibia Coastal Management White Paper approach (principles, methodologies, scope and content) has been developed and is included in Annex 4. (1.4) Support to national coastal management mechanism and financial sustainability Description: Based on the results of the Outputs: previous sub-components, this sub- ‐ Expansion of the Integrated Coastal component supports the formally defined Zone Management Committee executive National Coastal Management ‐ Support to the functioning of the Mechanism and the broad-based various ICZM institutions, including consultative Integrated Coastal Zone the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee with the Management Committee development of a long-term strategy, an ‐ The financial sustainability strategy is annual work plan and other operational included in the National Policy on modalities. It will further provide by mid- Coastal Management, and the term for the development of fully-fledged subsequent ICZM Bill financial sustainability strategy and action plan based on a detailed resource and needs assessment Additional financing Description: This component will Outputs: finance: ‐ An option paper on roles and mandates has been developed, recommending (a) A study and proposed enabling establishing an independent coastal legislation for the National Policy on entity Coastal Management as well as an ‐ ICZM Bill has been finalized and is options paper for the National Policy on currently pending Cabinet clearance Coastal Management governance and before being presented to Parliament institutional arrangements. The associated ‐ Support provided to the Karas participatory consultative process and Integrated Regional Land Use Plan documentation on the clarification of and the Hardap Integrated Regional institutional mandates and enabling Land Use Plan legislation of the National Policy on 27 Coastal Management will also be ‐ Support provided to the Ministry of supported. Works and Transport on the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan (b) Preparation of new guidelines for ‐ Two Coastal Strategic Environmental regional and local government land-use Assessments reviewed and updated: plans that incorporate the Integrated Erongo and Kunene Strategic Coastal Zone Management ICZM Environmental Assessment; and approach. At least two regional or local Hardap and Karas Strategic government land-use plans will be Environmental Assessment prepared using the guidelines. The ‐ Developed comprehensive terms of National Policy on Coastal Management reference for the development of the has established the criteria to define and Coastal Hub Strategic Environmental apply the ICZM approach, however it is Assessments and Environmental critical for the project to apply the ICZM Management Plans for all coastal concept in land use and development towns plans within the regional, local and ‐ Preparation of Strategic Environmental national government sectors. Assessments and Environmental Management Plans for all coastal (c) Development and dissemination of towns methodologies and lessons learned on ‐ Comprehensive terms of reference land rehabilitation, Environmental Impact developed on the mapping of Assessments and good management for sensitivity of desert substrates the coast that will also feed into the ‐ The national core environment ensuing enabling ICZM legislation. This indicators have been adopted in activity would develop best September 2014 and the State of the environmental practices guidelines to Environment and Natural Capital incorporate ICZM tools in the productive Value reports were albeit delayed. The sector. Environmental Management Plans delay has been attributed to lack of in coastal towns would be implemented in data to support the assessment of the line with Environmental Management Act identified indicators and commitment and National Policy on Coastal of the co-investigator. The reports Management to control poor were then submitted to the NACOMA environmental management practices. Project in December 2015. Some of these towns are surrounded by protected areas, hence the need for uniform improvement in environmental management. (d) Updating the report of the state of the environment of the Namibian Coast, the regional Sector Environmental Assessments and sustainable development decision-making tools that incorporate economic valuations, mapping, Geographic Information System and environmental scenarios. The state of 28 environment report would update regularly the biodiversity indicators for the coast. Component 2 – Targeted capacity-building for integrated coastal zone management (2.1) Awareness and training for ICZM Description: Based on the results from Outputs: sub-components 1.1 and 1.2 and the ‐ Project Cycle Management training training needs assessment for regional, delivered to Line Ministries, Regional local and national government and Councils and Local Authorities in the subsequently developed targeted training 4 coastal regions modules, this sub-component will - in ‐ Technical support given to partnership with other initiatives - provide Municipality of Walvis Bay to cost-effective training to the identified participate and develop their ICLEI stakeholder groups. It will further provide Local Action for Biodiversity Project targeted support to Ministry of ‐ Training and Capacity Building Environment and Tourism’s efforts to Strategy & Action Plan has been mainstream and enhance biodiversity developed and implemented. management by specifically strengthening ‐ 669 representatives from local and regional delivery mechanisms. Municipalities, Regional Councils, Line Ministries, non-governmental Identified capacity-building measures organizations and parastatals have cutting across components 1,2 and 3 been trained in skill areas such as relate to: ICZM, strategic planning, strategic - Integrated Coastal Zone Management environmental assessment, (planning, mainstreaming and environmental impact assessment, management, including development of geographic information system, law site-specific management plans); enforcement, resource economics, - Environmental Impact Assessment, marine protected areas, and Strategic Environmental Assessment and governance, environmental education, land use zoning adapted to the specificity project management on ICZM, of coastal lands and waters; community-based natural resources - Monitoring and Evaluation procedures, management, first aid, environmental tools (Geographic Information System law and 4x4 training for coastal law and mapping) and effective data use and enforcers interpretation; - Participatory approaches (communities, private sector, government), communication and mediation skills; and - Sustainable resource-based economic development. These measures will be provided through (i) technical assistance from the Project Coordination Office Senior Technical Advisor and other national and 29 international thematic experts, (ii) thematic training workshops, (iii) on-the- job training, and (iv) study tours. (2.2) Biodiversity mainstreaming, monitoring and evaluation mechanism Description: This sub-component will Outputs: involve the review of existing ‐ Support to the establishment of the biodiversity monitoring and evaluation Namibian Management Effectiveness systems and assessment of coastal and Tracking Tool (NAMETT) for all sites marine biodiversity data, information ‐ Support to the continuous METT gaps and needs. It will focus on the assessment for supported protected development or upgrading of a cost- areas (once per year) effective, accessible and sustainable ‐ Terms of reference developed by method for a long-term coastal and NACOMA, the Strengthening marine biodiversity monitoring and Protected Area Network Project and evaluation system linked to other national the Benguela Current Commission to environmental monitoring efforts and to develop core national indicators the regional coastal profiles. network network that included the development of the web-based knowledge management system. A data hub or a web-based knowledge management system for biodiversity conservation data was planned to be developed with the State of the Environment Report. The delay in the production of the latter led to postponement of the data hub to 2016 and needs to be harmonized / integrated with similar activities being undertaken by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. (2.3) Communication and knowledge management Description: The objectives of this sub- Outputs: component are twofold: one is to develop ‐ Awareness baseline assessed in June a knowledge management mechanism 2007 (network) to allow stakeholders to share ‐ Communication and Awareness information (e.g. on management plans, Strategy developed after the Mid-Term interventions, mainstreaming Evaluation opportunities, meetings, training), ‐ More than 15 newspaper articles, 50 including feedback loops for inter- radio advertisements and discussion sectoral, vertical and international sharing sessions concentrating on raising of lessons and best practices related to coastal zone conservation during peak ICZM and mainstreaming coastal holiday periods have been produced biodiversity management into since 2009. The project also supported development planning. The other is to the production of pamphlets, posters, create an action-oriented communication stickers and DVDs. Training events strategy that will increase environmental discussed in section 2.2 above also 30 awareness among all key target groups constituted awareness raising and facilitate ownership and full public initiatives supported by the project. participation in the Coastal Vision and the ‐ Project website set up and operational Namibia Coastal Management White ‐ More than 300 awareness activities Paper development process. The have been conducted. These included development of participatory regional newspaper articles, radio coastal profiles will further bridge the advertisements, information events, knowledge gap about socioeconomic, production of information materials environmental and biodiversity such as DVDs on guidelines for off conservation and development issues and road driving for tourists, training their inter-linkages. These profiles will, in workshops, coast cleaning up tum, be used as a basis for local and campaigns and the setting up of a regional decision-making processes project website. relevant to the coast in particular, and will ‐ Awareness about ICZM has been feed back into the State of Environment increased among all coastal area Report and National Resource institutions as well as among tourists Accounting efforts. The profiles will be due to the sustained emphasis published, reviewed, endorsed and up- dated as needed by the Regional Councils. Additional financing Description: This component supports Outputs: awareness raising and capacity building ‐ See above activities to promote an integrated coastal zone management approach in development activities. This component would finance the development of education materials and communication and training programs for national, regional and local key policy and decision makers to implement the ICZM approach through the National Policy on Coastal Management. (i.e., radio programs, press releases, documentaries, expos, talks, etc.). It would also support the implementation of recommended activities proposed in the Communication and Awareness and Training and Capacity Building consultancies carried out under the on-going NACOMA project. Component 3 – Targeted investments in critical ecosystems for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use (3.1) Management planning of coastal ecosystems of biodiversity importance Description: This sub-component Outputs: includes a participatory review, update 31 and development of management plans ‐ Support to the declaration of the for key biodiversity priority conservation Sperrgebiet/Tsau//Khaeb National sites and their buffer zones (e.g. Skeleton Park, the Dorob National Park and the and Sperrgebiet/Tsau//Khaeb coastlines, country’s first marine protected area lichens fields, targeted future marine (Namibian Islands Marine Protected protected area sites (islands), and Ramsar Area): background studies, sites), in line with recommendations for institutional settings, fostering the appropriate financial and institutional agreements mechanisms and capacity development ‐ Drafting and adoption of the needs emerging from Components 1 and management plans for Skeleton Coast 2. In addition, this sub-component aims to National Park, Dorob National Park support the creation of new protected and Namib-Naukluft National Park areas (e.g. marine protected areas and the ‐ Revision of the management plans for Walvis Bay Nature Reserve). In order to the: Diamond Coastal Recreation Area increase functioning biodiversity (Lüderitz) and National West Coast conservation management in priority Recreation Area coastal areas, demarcation and gazetting ‐ Development of a Policy Guideline of these sites will be supported. Document for Park Management Plans (development of management plans for protected areas and draft management plan template), being used by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism ‐ Support to the municipality of Henties Bay for tourism option planning; and support to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism’s Strategic Tourism Planning for the Coast. Identification of sustainable tourism options for the coastal zone of Namibia and refinement of available data on coastal natural resource use practices. ‐ Strategic Environmental Assessments for the northern and southern coastal regions ‐ Preparation of the Dune Belt Contingency Plan to improve the management of a highly sensitive ecological area, part of Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, and support to its implementation ‐ Development of coastal profiles for the Kunene region, including information on political, socio-economic, demographic and environmental aspects 32 ‐ Legal endorsement of the Walvis Bay Nature Reserve, regulations for enforcement, and operational modalities (3.2) Implementation of priority actions under the management plans at site and landscape levels Description: This sub-component will Outputs: support implementation of reviewed and ‐ 12 matching grants supporting updated or new management plans protected area management and through targeted investments, related both sustainable use of natural resources: to biodiversity conservation and o Cape Cross Walkway rehabilitation, as well as sustainable use Extension activities linking biodiversity o Damara Tern Fencing conservation with economic development o Namib-Naukluft Park and benefits. It will prioritize sustainable Communication Project use activities with high potential for o Dolphin Project piloting, testing and learning o Dorob National Park (replicability). Types of targeted and site- Development specific investments that are eligible for o Walvis Bay Bird Paradise funding under the NACOMA Project o Kuiseb Delta Tourism Project (providing global environmental benefits o Namib Botanical Garden in addition to local ones) have been o Hardap Regional Council identified during preparation. Training and Capacity Potential biodiversity conservation Building, and Tourism activities include: species-specific Development and Marketing conservation measures (e.g. for Damara o Khorixas Cultural Heritage and tern, flamingos and lichen fields), control Interpretative Center and regulation measures (e.g. sports o Support to Communal fishing, quad biking), soil erosion control Conservancies and vegetation cover rehabilitation. o Namibian Islands Marine Potential investments related to Protected Area Development sustainable use include income- and Management generating activities that are connected to ‐ Development of a tourism ecosystem services, such as ecotourism management plan for the Tsiseb guiding facilities (e.g. desert paths, Conservancy viewing sites, sign posts and campsites), seaweed production, etc. Naturally, this sub-component would also provide support for limited infrastructure and equipment for site management purposes. Additional financing Description: This component supports the Outputs: implementation of the management plans ‐ See above of the two newly created parks, Dorob National Park and Namibian Islands 33 Marine Protected Area. It will also support the development of an integrated land use plan in neighboring communal conservancies. The project will support targeted investments identified in the management plans completed under the first project through the provision of matching grants to the adjacent communities of the parks. The matching grants mechanism used in the first NACOMA project will be used and follow all the rules established in the project Environmental Management Plan to ensure that the activities are in line with the Bank’s Safeguard Policies. Component 4 – Project coordination and reporting (4.1) Project coordination Description: This sub-component will Outputs: support the recruitment of 5 positions for ‐ Staff recruited and equipped the Project Coordination Office: a NACOMA Project Coordinator, a Senior Technical Advisor (Deputy Coordinator), an Administrative Assistant, an Accounting and Procurement Officer and a part-time monitoring and evaluation Specialist. It will further provide for office equipment and Project Coordination Office staff training to allow for efficient Project coordination and management. (4.2) Project performance and results reporting Description: This sub-component will Outputs: include Project performance and impact ‐ Project performance and impact monitoring as well as evaluation of monitored, evaluated and reported Project progress and reporting. Additional financing Description: This component supports the Outputs: functioning of the Project Coordination ‐ See above Office. It will continue to support the day to day operation of a project implementation unit responsible for the following functions: a) administration; b) coordination; c) financial and audit management; d) procurement management; e) monitoring and 34 evaluation; f) fundraising; and g) reporting. 35 Annex 3. Bank Lending and Implementation Support/Supervision Processes (a) Task Team members Responsibility/ Names Title Unit Specialty Lending Slaheddine Ben-Halima Consultant GGO05 AFTN1 John A. Boyle Senior Environmental Specialist - HIS Christophe Crepin Sector Leader GEN02 Nina Doetinchem Carbon Finance Specialist GCCFL CTRDM Steve J. Gaginis Senior Finance Officer - His Ayala Peled Ben Ari Consultant GENDR Gabriele Rechbauer HQ Consultant ST GSU13 Beula Selvadurai Temporary GENGE LEGAF- Aberra Zerabruk Consultant HIS Supervision/ICR Arbi Ben Achour Consultant GSU11 Slaheddine Ben-Halima Consultant GGO05 AFTN1 John A. Boyle Senior Environmental Specialist - HIS Antonio L. Chamuco Senior Procurement Specialist GGO07 AFTN1 Karsten Feuerriegel E T Consultant - HIS Simon Ochieng Lang'o Finance Officer WFALS AFTN1 Melanie Eltz McIntosh Junior Professional Associate - HIS Tandile Gugu Zizile Financial Management Specialist GGO13 Msiwa Lead Financial Management Rajat Narula OPSPF Spec Sr Financial Management AFTME Jonathan Nyamukapa Specialist - HIS Africa Eshogba Olojoba Lead Environmental Specialist GEN05 Jonathan David Pavluk Senior Counsel LEGES Ayala Peled Ben Ari Consultant GENDR Sophia Elizabetha Fredrik Senior Executive Assistant AFCS1 Prinsloo Gabriele Rechbauer HQ Consultant ST GSU13 Beula Selvadurai Temporary GENGE Pascal Tegwa Senior Procurement Specialist GGO01 36 Joao Tinga Financial Management Specialist GGO13 Sr Financial Management Patrick Piker Umah Tete GGO25 Specialist Jorge E. Uquillas Rodas Consultant OPSPF (b) Staff Time and Cost Staff Time and Cost (Bank Budget Only)10 US$ Thousands Stage of Project Cycle No. of staff weeks (including travel and consultant costs) Lending FY00 1.55 FY01 21.41 FY02 18.34 FY03 21.04 FY04 32.79 FY05 88.66 FY06 13.01 Total: 196.80 Supervision/ICR FY06 38.40 FY07 57.96 FY08 63.13 FY09 65.32 FY10 35.45 FY11 48.04 FY12 103.75 FY13 74.40 FY14 72.33 FY15 27.74 FY16 70.63 Total: 657.15 10  The Bank budget was mostly provided by the GEF as part of the agency fee. The Country Management  Unit also contributed to supervision budget from FY12 onwards.  37 Annex 4. Summary of Borrower's ICR   NAMIBIAN COAST CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT (NACOMA) TERMINAL EVALUATION SUMMARY OF THE FINAL REPORT Prepared by The NACOMA Project April 2016 38   1.  THE PROJECT AND ITS DEVELOPMENT CONTEXT The Development Objective of NACOMA is stated in the PAD as: “to strengthen conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia”. This objective is in line with the overall national conservation and development agenda as stated in the country’s Constitution. Article 95 (1) of the constitution provides for the formulation of policies and legislation that aim to safeguard the country’s natural resource heritage for the benefit of current and future generations. At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, a Green Plan which created a common national vision for sustainable development was formally tabled by the then President of the Republic of Namibia His Excellency Dr Sam Nujoma. That plan subsequently led to the development of the 12th Point Plan for Integrated and Sustainable Environmental Management which was adopted by Namibia’s Parliament in 1993. The principal policy tool that guides national development in all sectors in Namibia is the National Development Plan (NDP) which sets clear goals in terms of biodiversity conservation, as well as committing to the formulation and implementation of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP I and NBSAP II). In addition, a 30-year planning framework known as Vision 2030 provides a framework for sustainable development planning, while creating a long-term perspective within which future development planning will be executed. The Namibian coastal region is characterized by an impressive range of biological and ecological diversity in the dominant desert landscape. This rich biodiversity and the unique desert landscapes forms the basis for economic development in these coastal regions. The rapidly growing nature based tourism in the Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene regions of Namibia also form a strong foundation for poverty alleviation all along the coast. In addition, the regions are also experiencing a rapidly expanding extractive industry producing a variety of minerals. Oil and gas exploration and commercial fishing have become important sources of livelihoods in the area in recent years. However, this growing economic development along the coast is leading to an increase in- migration into the Erongo region resulting in the burgeoning urban development with its attendant problems of pollution of freshwater resources, increase in coastal and marine pollution due to the expansion of industry as well as the degradation of coastal wetland systems all of which promote long term biodiversity losses and disruption of ecological systems. This situation is made worse by the absence of integrated conservation and development planning of the Namibian coast, as well as limited management capacity within the institutions charged with the responsibility of managing these regions. The NACOMA Project was therefore introduced as part of the Government of Namibia’s strategy to promote sustainable economic development in the coastal regions and to address local, regional, national and global environmental priorities. The project responds fully to the NBSAP I and NBSAP II that were developed to promote the conservation and management of the under-protected key ecosystems of biodiversity importance and make 39 adequate input into the process of zoning and development of the coastal regions. These plans would be included in the Regional Development Plans (RDPs). The Government of Namibia through the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) identified the development of ICZM legislation and creation of an institutional framework for ICZM to enable the decentralization of environmental mandates for the coast and as the three key areas that need strengthening in order to develop and implement ICZM in Namibia. These three elements make up the three components of the NACOMA project. Under the element targeting the development of ICZM legislation, the project aimed to support the review of all coast-related policy, legislative and institutional frameworks in order to identify and prioritize areas for potential adjustment and harmonization. The ultimate objective was the development of a National Policy on Coastal Management for the country which was done during the original NACOMA Project and endorsed by the Namibian Cabinet on 13 September 2012 and subsequently, NACOMA project developed an ICZM Bill which was completed in August 2015 and submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for Cabinet submission. The decentralization of environmental mandates for the coast was meant to strengthen regional and local development through the promotion of sustainable management of coastal resources and to ensure that the Environmental Management Act 7 of 2007 is well promoted, understood and implemented among all coastal stakeholders. Specific attention was paid to addressing the currently fragmented planning, programme implementation and assessment on the coast which were under the authority of several central line ministries, including the MET, Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), MURD, Ministry of Mines and Energy (MME), Ministry of Lands and Resettlement (MLR), Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MAWF) and Ministry of Works and Transport (MWT). Finally, the project was also expected to establish an enabling institutional framework for ICZM to build upon the Integrated Coastal Zone Management Committee (ICZMC) established by the four coastal Regional Councils with support from the Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development (DANCED) project in Erongo Region in 2002. The NACOMA project worked to broaden the membership of the ICZMC to include other relevant government Ministries, civil society organisations and the private sector as well as to strengthen the institution through the creation of an effective policy environment, the designation of a formal mandate and the delivery of specifically targeted capacity building among the broader membership. This committee has been strongly active since its inception until the end of the project, although reduced frequencies experienced towards the end might have hampered the implementation and sustainability of the project. 1.1 Project Relevance to National Development Objectives From the above, it was clear that the NACOMA project was designed to address issues that were considered critical to the conservation and management of the coastal zone of Namibia. The project was therefore relevant to national priorities for biodiversity conservation in the fragile coastal zone of Namibia. 40 1.2 Project Beneficiaries The project through its PAD has identified a number of project beneficiaries which included the following: MET: Capacity Building measures, Strengthening environmental legal and policy framework (E.g Promoting the implementation of the EMA along the coast, development of the park management plans, policy framework for concessions in proclaimed protected areas along the coast), infrastructure development in the coastal protected areas, routine monitoring for coastal PAs. MFMR: Capacity Building measures, Collection of national marine biodiversity data (routine monitoring of bird sand marine mammals), procurement of research equipment, support the gazzeting of the NIMPA, development of draft regulations pertaining to marine tourism. MURD: Capacity Building measures, Improved urban, regional and national planning through progress with decentralization process, strengthened institutional and technical capacity within LAs and RCs and awareness for effective environmental and biodiversity planning and management including land use planning ,SEAs, EMPs and coastal profiles, strengthened capacity of Erongo’s regional council staff, SC, ICZMC, SG members, LAs and RCs and other stakeholder for managing core environmental awereness from increased communication efforts and coordination. MLR: Coastal vision development process leading to efforts harmonizing competing land uses and development interests, coastal profiles providing economic, social and environmental baseline for regional development, planning and management. MWT: Capacity Building measures, Development of waste management policy for the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan ToRs 1.3 Project Management Arrangements The implementation arrangements of the NACOMA project were guided by the following considerations: • The need to ensure sustainability of project outcomes, • The need to foster the on-going decentralization process, • The limited absorptive capacity for new ideas and financial resources at local levels, and • The need to identify lessons for replication. In response to these considerations, the implementation arrangements for the NACOMA project included the use of local coastal institutions, the expansion of the mandates of these coastal institutions to include conservation of biodiversity, as well as the involvement of a broad spread of governmental, civil society and private sector entities in the implementation of the project. 41 As stated above, the NACOMA project was developed to build upon an earlier initiative introduced at the coast to promote ICZM which was developed by the four coastal Regional Councils of Hardap, Karas, Erongo and Kunene. The ICZMC established under that precursor project became a critical project management entity as described below. The ICZMC functioned as an advisory body that worked in liaison with the Project Steering Committee (PSC) on all aspects of Project implementation. The Committee adopted a flexible structure which enabled it to effectively respond to local coastal priorities, different stakeholder groups and unforeseen and emerging issues. The ICZMC was regionally- driven and worked to enable multi-directional coordination. ICZMC membership included the four Regional Councils, coastal focal points nominated by various government ministries, representatives of Local Authorities and representatives of civil society organizations operating in the coastal zone as well as the private sector and focal points from on-going donor funded projects. Project implementation oversight and strategic leadership was provided by a high-level PSC made up of high-level representatives, nominated by the respective Permanent Secretaries/Regional Governors from the following institutions and it was chaired by the Environmental commissioner: • MET (1) (chair), MURD (2): Planning function and the Directorate of Decentralization Coordination (deputy/co-chair), MFMR (1), MME (1), MAWF (1), MWT (1) and National Planning Commission (NPC) (1); • Regional Councils: Erongo (1), Kunene (1), Karas (1) and Hardap (1), to ensure parity and strong regional participation; and • A representative of the NACOMA Project Coordination Office (PCO), which functioned as the secretariat to the Steering Committee. Day-to-day project management was the responsibility of the PCO. During the first phase the PCO consisted of a Project Coordinator, a Project Assistant, a Senior Technical Advisor/Technical Advisor, a Monitoring and Technical specialist and an Accounting and Procurement officer. The project took on more responsibilities following the endorsement of the Environmental Management Act 7 of 2007 (EMA) of which on behalf of the Environment and Tourism Ministry the project was tasked to promote the use of the EMA among the coastal developers and stakeholders, this resulted in the project recruiting 2 Environmental Officers, 4 Young Professionals and a Communication and Branding officer. The Project also took on young graduates from time to time as a Professional interns. The PCO’s mandate was to coordinate and ensure the implementation of the Project Implementation Plan (PIP) as endorsed by the PSC, including delivery of funds to selected activities, and the production of implementation progress reports and financial reports as well as putting significant efforts in addressing the environmental issues at the coast which included the reviewing of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports for various developments and their accompanying Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). The PCO reported directly to the PSC chaired by the Environmental Commissioner. 2. EVALUATION FINDINGS 42 2.1 Performance at Objective/Outcome Level At the time of the Final Evaluation, a lot of progress had been made towards achieving the Project Development Objective. The political commitment to conservation of biodiversity effectively contributed to the strengthening of conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of biodiversity in coastal and marine ecosystems in Namibia. This commitment has resulted in the development of the National Policy on Coastal Management for Namibia (endorsed by Cabinet in September 2012) followed by the development of the ICZM Bill (completed in August 2015). The ICZM Bill was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism for Cabinet submission. In addition, the proclamation of the Sperrgebiet National Park (now called Tsau //Khaeb) in 2008, the Namibian Islands Marine Protected Area (NIMPA) in 2009 and Dorob National Park in 2010, linking the Namib Naukluft Park and the Skeleton Coast Park in 2011 contributed to the achievement of the PDO. The declaration of Dorob National Park completed the process of having the whole of Namibia’s coastal zone designated as a protected area and supported the development of management plans for all coastal protected areas. The project also developed Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEAs) for all the four coastal regions in 2012 which were reviewed and updated in 2015. In addition, the project promoted the integration of management tools such as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and (SEA) into the operations of coastal Regional Councils, Local Authorities and the private sector. The project also promoted institutional coordination and capacity building for sustainable development planning across all sectors along the coast resulting in enhanced awareness of the implications of development decisions on the environment among large sections of the public in the region. In collaboration with sister projects such as the Strengthening the Protected Areas Network (SPAN) Project, NACOMA also contributed to the improvement of the management effectiveness of institutions that are responsible for coastal resources management through training and targeted capacity building initiatives. Hence, is it expected and of significant importance that the principles of integrated coastal zone management become sustainable. Progress at Project Objective level was tracked through the use of the following five indicators: • Increase in km2 and number of terrestrial and marine ecosystems of biodiversity importance under effective management by EOP compared to baseline situation. • Increase in score of management effectiveness for 2 PAs i.e NIMPA and Dorob National Park • Increase in the number of people engaged in sustainable use activities by EOP compared to baseline situation. • Increase in the number of national, regional and local plans and strategies better incorporated into planning, policy, institutions and investments at national, regional and local level by EOP compared to baseline situation. 43 • Project Beneficiaries and Female beneficiaries. The Final Evaluation findings indicate that out of the 5 OIs, only one Indicator was not achieved i.e Indicator 2 which was to have an increase in the score of management effectiveness for the newly proclaimed national parks (Dorob National Park and the NIMPA) . However the project is adjudged to have been Successful (S) in achieving its Objectives. 2.2. Project Performance under Components Component 1: Policy, Legal, Institutional and Planning Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use Component 1 of the NACOMA project aims to achieve the following: 1. Develop an enabling ICZM legislation 2. Prepare for regional and local land use plans, SEAs and SEMPs 3. Develop methodologies for land rehabilitation. 4. Develop and update the state of the environment report 1. Develop an enabling ICZM legislation a) Policy reviews and revisions as well as the review of institutional roles for coastal zone management have been completed and a National Policy on Coastal Management has been developed before the formulation of the ICZM Bill. The ICZM Bill is expected to provide the basis for the establishment of institutional arrangements for the management of coastal resources. There have been earlier delays with the endorsement of the NPCM at Cabinet which made it impossible for the ICZM Bill to be developed during the first phase. Following the endorsement of the NPCM during the first phase, the development process of the ICZM Bill commenced in phase 2. The process was stalled for some time due to the fact that the MFMR needed more time to review the Bill which consequently resulted in the MFMR needing more clarity on the Bill. Subsequently a meeting took place on the 11th May 2015 between the MET and MFMR technical personnel and a mutual agreement was then reached. A national consultative meeting on the ICZM Bill took place between 24- 25th August 2015 in Swakopmund whereby a number of stakeholders from numerous institutions reviewed the Bill and provided their inputs. The consultants developing the Bill were then given one month to incorporate the inputs derived from the national workshop. The ICZM Bill has been prepared for cabinet submission through the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. b) Review of Institutional Mandates A Joint Technical Committee consisting of MET and MFMR has been set up. The committee has focussed its attention on the development of NWCTRA and Walvis Bay Nature Reserve Management Plans. The functions of the Technical Committee between 44 MET and MFMR has since been incorporated in the regional CMCs, WEMAF and the Park Consultative Forum (PCF). Coastal zone management will depend upon the continued and increased participation of local level institutions. The Erongo Region CMC under the auspices of the Erongo Regional Council is one such institution that has continued to operate in the interests of management of the dune belt. The scope of the Erongo CMC has since been enlarged towards including the developmental hotspot of Erongo (Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Henties Bay and Arandis). The effective participation of local institutions and effective resource management will however depend on the extent to which MET and MURD are willing to decentralise some of their functions to the local level not foreclosing the functions of the envisaged CMA under the mandate of the ICZM Bill. 2. Preparation of regional and local land-use plans The Environmental Officers (EOs) have been putting momentous efforts in addressing the environmental issues at the coast whilst fostering sustainable development. This includes reviewing of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports for various developments and accompanying Environmental Management Plans (EMPs); undertaking field visits to various sites where developments are taking place; encouraging coastal stakeholders and developers to make use of the Environmental Management Act (EMA) and participating in technical meetings and workshops aiming to discuss environmental issues. A Young Professional (YP) in Environmental management has been assisting the EOs in dealing with environmental issues. The project developed SEA/SEMPs for the four coastal regions in 2008 of which 2 i.e. Kunene & Erongo regions were externally reviewed and updated in 2012 while the SEA/SEMPs for Hardap and Karas regions were reviewed and updated in 2015. The external reviews on these two documents were conducted in phases due to the source of funds. The Erongo & Kunene SEA/SEMPs was reviewed in 2014 along with the other SEAs for National Development Plans (NDPs) all financed by GIZ. In April 2015, a review of the Hardap & Karas SEA/SEMPs was commissioned, the review report was finalized in September 2015. Following the completion of both reviews, incorporation of the comments from both reviews into the updated SEA/SEMPs was commenced and the final updated SEA/SEMPs were submitted in December 2015, and reviewed and approved by the NACOMA Project in February 2016. The Terms of Reference were developed for the development of the SEAs/SEMPs for Walvis Bay, Swakopmund, Henties Bay, Lüderitz and Oranjemund to strengthen the already developed Environmental Management Plans. The draft ToRs were deemed to be ineffective towards achieving the purpose of an SEA by the SEA expert and by the NACOMA Project Scientific Group. It was then suggested that instead of conducting SEAs for each coastal town, two developmental hub SEAs should be conducted. Based on the latter suggestion, the NACOMA Project developed ToRs for an expert to develop detailed ToRs for the development of the hub SEAs and SEMPs along with coastal town SEMPs. After the expert was hired to develop the ToRs stated above, stakeholder consultation 45 workshops were held on the 19th May 2015 in Swakopmund and 26th May 2015 in Lüderitz to solicit inputs from the coastal stakeholders from the two development hubs or nodes. The northern hub consist of Swakopmund, Walvis Bay, Henties Bay and Arandis and the southern hub consist of Lüderitz, Aus and Oranjemund. The workshop aimed at gathering data on the proposed projects in the two nodes and the strategic issues for concerns that should be considered within the ToR for the development of the two nodal SEAs. The finalized ToRs for the development of the coastal hub SEA/SEMPs were submitted to the NACOMA Project in August 2015. The NACOMA Project has rendered immense support during the development and the implementation of the Uranium SEA and SEMP developed by the Ministry of Mines and Energy. The Uranium SEA/SEMP was developed to understand and try mitigate the cumulative impacts arising from the Uranium rush. The development of the tolerable limits for the tourism activities within the Dune Belt was also developed to augment the Tourism Development Plan (TDP) for the DNP. A stakeholder’s consultative workshop was conducted and the first draft report was submitted to PCO in October 2015 whilst the final report was submitted in November 2015. The findings were incorporated in the DNP TDP and the Dune Belt and Kuiseb Delta EIA. 3. Development of Methodologies for Land Rehabilitation Terms of references for the development of rehabilitation guidelines and coastal substrates sensitivity maps for sustainable development were approved by the World Bank, and thenceforth presented to the ICZM Scientific Group (SG) but due to the substantial input received from the SG, significant amendments were made to the ToRs, and as per the World Bank regulations re-approval was needed. The ToRs were then resent to the World Bank for approval and the advert for this consultancy was then placed in local newspapers. EoIs were received and the selection was done. The selected consultancy expressed concern over the large study area and amount of work entailed in this study taking into consideration the little time left before project closure. The PCO and the consultants then agreed to scale down the study to focus on the DNP instead of the whole coast of Namibia. As a result, the ToRs had to be resend to the World Bank for yet another approval. This consultant was consequently on hold and postponed to year 2016. 4. Update the State of Environment Report The national core environment indicators have been adopted in September 2014 and the State of the Environment and Natural Capital Value reports were albeit delayed. The delay has been attributed to lack of data to support the assessment of the identified indicators and commitment of the co-investigator. The reports were then submitted to the NACOMA Project in December 2015. Component 2: Targeted Capacity-Building for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) conducive to Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use 46 a) Awareness raising and training Awareness raising on ICZM has been promoted through the formulation of the TCBSAP. Training under this plan has been under implementation since 2009 with 392 people from Regional Councils, Local Authorities and Government and Quasi Government entities trained during the first NACOMA phase in skill areas such as ICZM, Strategic planning, SEA, EIA, GIS, Law Enforcement, Resource Economics, Marine Protected Areas, and Governance. Two environmental officers were recruited by the project which has greatly improved communication and interpretation of government laws and regulations. During the second phase a total number of 277 people were trained in Environmental Education, Strategic planning and project management on ICZM, CBNRM, First Aid, Environmental Law and 4x4 training for coastal law enforcers, so a total of 669 people have been trained in numerous courses during the project’s life. Over the years the PCO staff have also attended numerous trainings, seminars, conferences and symposiums in order to enhance their knowledge on all aspects pertaining to ICZM and environmental management and conservation as a whole. b) Biodiversity mainstreaming, Monitoring and Evaluation The PCO has developed a Management Information System (MIS) with the assistance of the M&E officer during the first phase however, it was not implemented in the second phase. A Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy has also been developed and is used for on- going collection of data which is used in tracking progress in project implementation. A data hub or a web-based knowledge management system for biodiversity conservation data was planned to be developed with the State of the Environment Report. The delay in the production of the latter led to postponement of the data hub to 2016. c) Communication and Knowledge Management A very successful Communication and Awareness Strategy (CAS) has been developed under the NACOMA project. The principal products of this strategy include posters, pamphlets, banners, TV/Radio clips, a film on the Namib Desert Coast and on DNP. A Project website has been set up where all project products are posted. The PCO recruited a Branding and Communications Officer (BCO) in 2014. The CBO was contracted and commenced work on the 1st of August 2014.The Communication and Branding Officer (CBO) has been supporting the NACOMA project to effectively build awareness on the need to protect the coast and continued with the promotion of the COASTODIAN brand among the coastal stakeholders and the Namibian Nation at large. The CBO however resigned in August 2015, since then her work has been conducted and carried through by 2 Young Professionals. Component 3: Targeted Investments in Critical Ecosystems for Biodiversity Conservation, Sustainable Use and Mainstreaming 47 Management planning for coastal hotspots has been a central theme of NACOMA support to coastal zone management. The Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) has provided technical support to MET aimed at improving conservation management effectiveness through the implementation of SEA recommendations on the Kunene and Erongo coastal areas. SEAs have also been conducted in the Hardap and Karas Regions. Consultations have also been conducted to inform management decisions for the central coast area. These consultations have informed the process of zoning land and identification of compatible land uses in this ecologically sensitive area. This work was coordinated by the CMC of the Walvis Bay-Swakopmund dune belt. The efforts of this committee have been augmented by the designation of DNP which now places the control of activities such as off-road driving in sensitive dune areas within a legal context. This is an issue the CMC has been struggling to control especially during public holidays when tourists from outside the coastal area disregard the controls put in place. The CMC has now been incorporated in the regional council for enlarging its scope to include regional development issues. The first Marine Protected Area in Namibia was proclaimed in February 2009 and the production of management plans for this park are still under development. Management effectiveness have been measured since the proclamation of the NIMPA. Targeted investments that promote conservation and sustainable use of resources at specific sites under management plans have also been introduced under NACOMA. Eleven (10) project proposals were approved during the first phase of the project with the implementation of four having been completed by 2013. During the second phase 6 matching grant projects were approved and implemented. (ANNEX 5). Component 4: Project Coordination and Reporting Effective project coordination is dependent upon the quality of staff engaged, and the continuity of tenure of such staff in the positions they hold. The successes highlighted above have been achieved because the staffing situation at the PCO has stabilised since the Mid Term review. During the first phase the Project Coordinator position was filled by then Senior Technical Advisor (STA). This appointment provided continuity with project implementation as the STA had experience with Coastal Zone Management issues. The STA position was filled through a new appointment which resulted in the significant improvement in the implementation of activities under component 2 and 3. The STA was involved in the drafting and implementation of the Training Plan prior to the appointment. The Monitoring and Evaluation position was filled through the appointment of a substantive project funded Monitoring and Technical Specialist at PCO. Reporting on project implementation has improved significantly since the appointment. The Monitoring and Technical specialist resigned in August 2014 and her work was continued by a young professional. 48 The Project Assistant personnel, dealing with administrative issues was promoted to the Project Administrator position resulting in the recruitment of a new project Assistant, a new appointment which has resulted in significant improvement in administrative process at PCO. The Procurement and Accounting Officer was appointed as the Acting Project Coordinator following the resignation of the Project Coordinator in August 2015. The PCO acted on the recommendation from the Mid Term review and engaged a young Namibian professional as an intern to assist with project implementation during the first phase. In addition to providing useful additional staff for the project, this arrangement provides opportunities for developing a corps of young Namibians with the capacity to manage projects such as NACOMA in future. Four young graduates have been recruited since the beginning of the second phase. 2.3 Performance Reporting Evaluation and progress reporting under the NACOMA project have improved noticeably with the recruitment of the Monitoring and Technical specialist in 2009 who was replaced by a young professional in monitoring and evaluation subsequent to her resignation in August 2014. Quarterly and Semi-annual progress and financial reports have been produced on schedule since the Mid Term Review. 2.4 Financial Performance Project Financial Performance was measured against the total GEF Grant of US$ 4,9 million during the first phase which ended with 97.7% disbursement and against the additional GEF funding of US$1.2 which resulted in a disbursement of 99.7% at the end of the second phase in December 2015. Table 5 below summarises Expenditure under the GEF Grant per component as at December 31, 2011. Table: GEF Expenditure per Component Total Budget Component Expenditure up to % of Total (US$) 31/12/2015 Total GEF Component Component 1 1,219,650 18 % Component 2 1,951,970 28% Component 3 2,373,905 35% Component 4 1,279,475 19% Total 6,825,000 100% 2.5 Project Implementation Effectiveness and Efficiency Project implementation effectiveness is measured through an assessment of the outputs realized compared to the resources expended. As stated in the Financial Performance 49 section above, the expenditure on each component at the end of the project was nearly 100% of the resources allocated. The overall assessment of the evaluation is that project implementation has been effective with the project making considerable progress towards realizing its objectives as shown by the extent to which objective indicators have been realized. The audit reports assessed during the evaluation do not record any issues with the implementation of the project or the financial management systems. As indicated above, expenditure levels per component of committed funds which when taken together with the effective implementation process highlighted above indicates a high level of implementation efficiency. 3. SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT OUTCOMES The sustainability of the Outcomes of NACOMA will largely depend on the extent to which coastal zone management is institutionalised in the region. The NACOMA project prepared and the subsequent adoption of the National Policy for Coastal Management (NPCM) by cabinet in September 2012. The endorsement of the NPCM was a step forward fulling the need for the development of the legal framework for coastal resources management. In 2013 following the endorsement of the NPCM the NACOMA Project through a consultant commissioned the development of the ICZM Bill which was completed and prepared for cabinet submission through the MET in 2015 Once the Bill is in place a Coastal Management Authority can be established to champion the conservation and sustainable use of coastal resources. Although the draft ICZM Bill is not enacted, the Government has shown commitment to these efforts as demonstrated by the contribution of over N$2,500,000, from National Planning Commission and MET capital and operational budgets respectively to the implementation of this project for the financial year 2016/2017. Institutional Sustainability is therefore considered Likely (L) if the government endorse the ICZM Bill. There is a growing realisation among all stakeholders that coastal resources form the basis for employment creation. Given the realisation by government that natural goods and services are a valuable asset to Namibia, it is expected that there will be continuing and increasing investment in coastal zone management in Namibia. This will ensure social sustainability of the outputs of the NACOMA project. Social Sustainability of NACOMA outputs is rated Likely (L). The NACOMA project has significantly contributed to improved conservation of the coastal zone in Namibia with gazetting the National Policy on Coastal Management and declaring the entirety of the terrestrial coastal region as a continuous protected area following the proclamation of Tsau//Khaeb and Dorob National Parks in 2008 and 2010, respectively. The improved protection of the coastal area should be viewed from the perspective of other conservation efforts promoted through projects such as SPAN, CPP, ICEMA, NAMPLACE and the PASS projects which have all contributed to the conservation of all of the biomes that characterise Namibia. The commitment to these 50 initiatives by Government will ensure the environmental sustainability of the outcomes of these programmes. Environmental Sustainability is therefore rated Likely (L). Namibia continues to attract a lot of conservation programme support from international cooperating partners. In recent years however, there is evidence of increasing government investment in these programmes especially following the demonstration through the study on the valuation of natural resources that these resources contributed significantly to national gross domestic product. If these trends continue the likelihood of financial sustainability of outcomes of projects such as NACOMA will be guaranteed. With increased government investment in conservation initiatives, financial sustainability of the outputs of NACOMA is rated Likely (L). The overall sustainability of the outputs and outcomes of the NACOMA project is rated Likely (L). 4. PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT The project targets changes in the way people relate to the resources they live with. Most of the work that has been done to date has therefore focused on awareness raising about the need for and benefits that can be expected from coastal zone management. In doing this the project addresses a variety of stakeholder interests and this has brought about a paradigm change. A major project risk at the global objective level is the weak or absence of a legislative framework for the implementation of project activities. It is generally understood that there is need for a legal framework for the implementation of the ICZM plan. This framework will also allow for the establishment and institutionalization of the proposed Coastal Management Authority. The efforts of the project towards policy formulation, the endorsement of the National Policy on Coastal management and subsequent development of the ICZM Bill are therefore important in mitigating this risk. This risk has been partly addressed by the fact that the coastal protected areas were proclaimed with improved regulatory framework. The work by BCC reduced the risk in the marine extent of the coastal zone supported by Marine Spatial Management and Governance (MARISMA) funded by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) will added sustainability in regard to marine spatial planning and governance. An additional risk is financial sustainability. The project is largely funded through GEF and GRN contributions as shown under the financial performance section above. There is little funding from local resource users. The TDPs for PAs and improvement of the National Fisheries Policy makes provision for resource users to pay appropriate rental levels for the resource they use. 5. LESSONS LEARNT 51 The implementation of the NACOMA project has yielded a number of very useful lessons which should be considered in the design of either follow-on projects or similar projects elsewhere. These are discussed below. • Projects such as NACOMA that are meant to change the mindsets of individuals and the way institutions do business take long to yield results. It is therefore important that planning for such initiatives take a long term view which ideally goes beyond normal project life cycles. • National Policy formulation was a long drawn out process which has been under development since the project was initiated and it was only endorsed in 2012. It is therefore important that project designs that include policy formulation allocate adequate time for the initiation and finalisation of the processes. • The focus of the project should have been both policy formulation and ensuring buy-in of sustainable development tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessments and Management Plans for continued rational decision-making. • Policy formulation was done in tandem with human resources capacity development to ensure the sustainability of the effort beyond the project implementation time frame. • Progress with the implementation of targeted investments for coastal zone management through Matching Grants was stalled in some cases due to ambitious feasibility assessments and business plans, failure to mobilise matching resources and low commitment by the beneficiaries. Projects that are designed with the intention of securing local contributions to fund programme elements need to ensure that the required resources would be available when needed. The executing agencies should pledged their continued support after the lapse of the project phase. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Conclusions Namibia’s coastal zone is an important ecological asset which holds immense potential for contributing to the country’s economic growth and development. The increasing pressures on the resources of this region that are now beginning to be experienced need to be managed to avoid the destruction of this important asset. The NACOMA project has so far targeted appropriate areas for intervention in this direction. The NPCM and the development of the ICZM Bill that were developed through NACOMA are expected to result in the creation of an enabling framework for the management of the coastal zone upon the endorsement of the ICZM Bill. Policy formulation requires a parallel process of human and institutional capacity building as without this, programme sustainability is not guaranteed. The awareness raising that 52 NACOMA has been involved since its inception has laid a strong foundation for training and capacity building. The Namibian coastal zone is extensive. It is not possible to implement projects of the nature of NACOMA over such large areas. This necessitates the identification of hotspots to focus on and test the theories that are inherent in biodiversity conservation. The targeted investments that were being implemented through Matching Grants under NACOMA are important in this regard. Finally, projects need effective management and coordination if they are to deliver on their objectives. NACOMA has unfortunately suffered from high staff turnover, especially towards the end of the project. The project has also not always attracted the most useful consultants when they have gone out to source additional support from outside the project. These issues are particularly important in a country like Namibia with its limited human resource base. 6.2 Recommendations The NACOMA project was initiated through an initiative at the Coastal Regional Councils which had limited staff. As the project developed it soon became apparent that more staff would be needed to promote the project’s goals and objectives. Such additional staff can only be secured from national government entities that have functions at the coast. Unfortunately most of these entities still have top heavy staff allocations that favour central governance in Windhoek. It is recommended that MET promote the decentralisation process among all relevant institutions or staffing of regional MET organisational structure as to provide adequate government human resources to complement the staff of regional councils. • Projects need to develop clear selection criteria for consultants if they are to speed up activity implementation. There are capacity limitations in Namibia which results in the same consultants being engaged for most of the work on the project. Projects should consider broadening the catchment from which they recruit consultants to avoid using the same consultants. • The use of committees such as ICZM, SC, SG and the CMCs that were used by the NACOMA Project as implementation vehicles is highly recommended. • The formalization of committees such as CMC’s that were established under the NACOMA Project is recommended to formalize the working relationships with these entities in order to allow effective participation of important stakeholder groups for coordinated resource utilization. • The project has “lit a lot of fires” as it mobilised for implementation. Some of these initiatives are however not doing as well as the others. It is recommended that the project focus on those activities that are showing promise more than others. This concentration of effort will increase chances of successful project implementation. 53 Annex 5. Borrower's Comments on Draft ICR This Annex makes provision for the summary of comments on the Bank’s draft ICR by the borrower, notwithstanding any other section within the draft that makes provision for the Borrower’s comments and the evaluation contained in the Borrower’s Completion Report contained in Annex 4 above. 1. Data Sheet No major observations that warranted comments and corrections were found. It will be appropriate to recognize the Recipient and the Responsible focal agency as in the Project Appraisal Document and data sheet for additional financing. 2. Project Context, Global Environment Objectives and Design No major observations that warranted comments and corrections were found. 3. Key Factors Affecting Implementation and Outcomes No major observations that warranted comments and corrections were found. 4. Assessment of Outcomes Section 3.1 validates the observation in 1. above whereas Section 3.2 tend to be modest in its assessment and might be devoid of truly reflecting the status quo. The implicit contribution by the NACOMA project on the awareness of sustainable development of Namibia’s coastal environment and biodiversity conservation is phenomenal11, given the positive responses of cross-sectoral planning, operational activities and participatory environmental assessments through the introduction of integrated coastal zone management along Namibia’s coast. 5. Assessment of Risk to Global Environment Outcome No major observations that warranted comments and corrections were found. 6. Assessment of Bank and Borrower Performance The Borrower is of the opinion that the achievement of nearly all indicators, by an implementation arrangement enabled by virtue of a balance created by the then sound background analyses, comprehensive project design and adaptive implementation, should render the performance by the borrower satisfactory. 7. Lessons Learned No major observations that warranted comments and corrections were found. 11 This observation is neglected due to the absence of an assessment of clearly defined sustainable use activities or trends. 54 8. Comments on Issues Raised by Borrower/Implementing Agencies/Partners Contained herein 55 Map 56