PROPOSAL FOR REVIEW
PROJECT TITLE: REGIONAL: INVENTORY, EVALUATION AND MONITORING OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA: A REGIONAL CAPACITY AND INSTITUTION BUILDING NETWORK.
GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity
COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY: Ratification of COB/ Eligible for UNDP Support
Angola see note 1 / X
Botswana X / X
Lesotho X / X
Malawi X / X
Mozambique X / X
Namibia see note 2 / X
Swaziland X / X
South Africa X / X
Zambia X / X
Zimbabwe X / X
TOTAL PROJECT COSTS: US$ 9.411 million
GEF FINANCING: US$ 4.725 million
GOVT. COUNTER FINANCING: US$ 4.000 million
CO-FINANCING: US$ 0.596 million (USAID/IUCN)
US$ 0.090 million (NBI - National Botanical Institute)
ASSOCIATED PROJECTS: US$ 1.920 million (UNDP training in env. mngmt)
GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: UNDP
EXECUTING AGENCY: to be determined
COUNTERPART AGENCIES: Angola Agostinho Neto University
Botswana National University of Botswana
Lesotho National University of Lesotho
Malawi National Herbarium & Botanic Gardens
Mozambique National Institute of Agronomic Research
Namibia National Herbarium
Swaziland National Herbarium
South Africa Natl.Botanical Institute/Dept. Environmental Affairs
Zambia University of Zambia
Zimbabwe National Herbarium
ESTIMATED APPROVAL DATE: 1 September 1996
PROJECT DURATION: 4 years
GEF PREPARATION COSTS: none (financed nationally)
1. Through networking and developing existing capacities within the southern African region this project will build the effective capacity of 102 professional and support staff in 10 countries to inventory, evaluate and monitor some 30,000 species of flowering plants and ferns (10% of the global flora) within arid, mediterranean, forest, mountain, coastal and wetland ecosystems. In doing so this project provides a south/south solution to the problem of building sufficient human and institutional capacity in botany and plant conservation to break the continued dependence of the region on the intellectual resources of the north. As such it represents a long term and strategic approach to all four GEF biodiversity operational programme areas in southern Africa.
2. This project is directly related to a host of other ongoing and planned projects in the region which currently hire, or plan to hire, outside experts and consultants to undertake botanical inventory, evaluation and monitoring to assess the impacts on botanical diversity of significant development projects. These include:
Angola: Cunene Hydro-electric Power plant (Italy + others)
Lesotho: Lesotho Highlands Water Scheme (EU & South Africa)
Malawi: Mulanje Mountain Biodiversity (World Bank + GEF?)
Mozambique: Southern region forestry development project (South Africa + Portugal)
Angola/Botswana/Namibia: Okavango regional development (UNDP, GEF? + others)
Southern Africa Arid Areas: Desert Margin Initiative (EU?, GEF? + others)
3. This project will directly reduce the potential negative impacts of such development projects on the botanical diversity of the region by increasing the information base concerning the distribution and status of the regions botanical diversity, and it will allow such assessments to be performed by individuals and institutions from within the region.
4. The ten countries which constitute southern Africa (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) comprise less than two percent of the world's land area, but contain over 10% of the global flora, ie. over 30,000 species of flowering plants and ferns in an area of around 6,000,000 km² (roughly the size of the USA). The region includes:
(a) 17 of the centres of plant diversity identified by the recent global review undertaken by IUCN/WWF
(b) arid and semi-arid ecosystems (including the whole of the Karoo-Kalahari-Namibia region, which includes 38% of the world's succulent flora)
(c) the whole of the Mediterranean-type ecosystem of the Cape Floristic Kingdom - the richest centre of botanical diversity and endemism in the world
(d) coastal, marine and freshwater ecosystems (notably the whole of the Zambezi system, the Okavango delta and the Kafue wetlands, besides many RAMSAR sites and several World Heritage Sites)
(e) forest ecosystems (including the Guineo-Congolian forests of Angola; the Usambara/Inhambane forests of Mozambique, the Afro-montane forests of Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe). Most, if not all, of these isolated forest remnants are under severe threat
(f) mountain ecosystems (including the Huambo and Huila highlands of Angola, the Chimanimani of Mozambique and Zimbabwe, the Nyika of Malawi/Zambia, the Drakensberg of South Africa and Lesotho, and Mt. Mulanje of Malawi.
5. Despite the extremely high floristic diversity of southern Africa, the countries of the region are poorly equipped in both infrastructure and human resources to inventory, monitor and evaluate it (see Tables 1, 2 and 3). This makes the region dependent on biodiversity scientists and consultants from outside the region and foreign workers and institutions dominate not only the staffing of many environment and biodiversity institutions but also the studies to assess impacts on and threats to the regions botanical diversity posed by development activities. With the exception of South Africa, not one of the countries has the "critical mass" of expertise and infrastructure needed to provide the information and understanding on botanical diversity that the Convention on Biological Diversity requires.
6. The urgent need for a regional capacity building programme, based on sharing the significant but isolated resources within the region, has been identified as the top priority for botanical diversity conservation and utilisation at successive regional conferences. In particular, a detailed review of the patterns of botanical diversity, conservation status, research, infrastructure and training needs, socio-economic potentials, and priorities for action, undertaken at a regional workshop on botanical diversity in southern Africa held in September 1993 concluded that:
(a) Southern Africa has an extremely rich, but in some areas poorly researched botanical diversity.
(b) Most countries in the region have very few trained botanists in permanent posts, few have more than rudimentary facilities.
(c) As a whole, however, southern Africa possesses the human resource potential in biology to make a meaningful contribution to the study, conservation and use of its botanical diversity.
(d) This potential could be best developed and strengthened through the formation of a regional network of botanists.
(e) A mechanism must be established, with appropriate funding, to ensure that the urgent capacity building and infrastructural support needed to mobilize the region's latent potential is realized.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
7. The primary goal of the project is to develop a strong core of professional botanists, taxonomists and plant diversity specialists within the ten countries of southern Africa, competent to inventory, monitor and evaluate the botanical diversity of the region in the face of specific development challenges, and to respond to the technical and scientific needs of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
8. This goal will be approached through the establishment of training and information management networks within and between participating countries. The products of the project will include in-country competence in botanical diversity assessment and management, an interactive electronic database/information system, and a wide range of published national and regional botanical diversity assessments, checklists, distribution maps, status reports, and the like.
9. The project will not in itself, adequately address the in situ conservation needs of individual species or vegetation types, which will require other strategies. The knowledge base and information management system developed through the project will, however, permit much improved assessment and priority setting for in situ conservation, reducing the costly redundancies and vital gaps which exist in present protected area networks.
10. The training programme will include the rehabilitation/development and management of ex-situ living collections of indigenous plants in botanical gardens.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Location
11. The project area includes all ten southern African countries (Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) with a total area of 5,92 million km².
Activities and Resource Requirements
12. Specific resource requirements are listed in the proposed budget. The project will comprise a number of planning, training, development and collaborative activities. The main activities can be summarised as follows:
13. (i) Planning workshops. To plan each component and phase of the project, with participation from each country joining the network. The planning workshops have already been initiated (September 1993 and September 1994). The draft proposals have been reviewed by potential participants from all countries in the region, and by specialists in north America and Europe. Further joint planning by all key participants will be needed to adjust and adapt the current proposal in terms of developing opportunities.
14. (ii) Training courses. Hands-on training in computer database development and management. An ongoing series of courses will be needed, from elementary computer literacy to advanced GIS systems, as the projects and participants advance and in terms of the participants needs. Initially, two or three candidates will be seconded by each country to participate in the first two to four week training session. The development of skills within this group will be monitored and supported by ongoing courses through the first year. Additional candidates, at post-graduate and under-graduate level, will be seconded as the project progresses. Special arrangements will be made for participants from Lusophone countries (Angola and Mozambique).
15. (iii) Post-graduate studies. A representative group of participants will be offered a one-year post-graduate course at Bsc (Hons) level in plant diversity assessment and taxonomy, providing them with the advanced training necessary to assume leadership positions in their national institutes. Such post-graduate courses will be offered at one or more southern African universities (University of the Witwatersrand, University of Cape Town, University of Pretoria, University of Zimbabwe) where appropriate levels of expertise exist. Both the University of Cape Town and University of the Witwatersrand currently offer excellent courses in the relevant topics. The courses will include modules in conservation biology, genetic resource collection, storage, management and monitoring, botanical garden development, re-introduction and rehabilitation, ethnobotanical and floristic studies, taxonomy, nomenclature and biosystematics. The level and choice of options will be determined through planning workshops with academic staff and the project leadership.
16. (iv) Collaborative activities will include joint field expeditions to poorly known areas of the region, as a training exercise for all levels of trainees, and in order to supplement the regional database. Target areas (geographic and taxonomic) will be identified through consultation with specialists in regional herbaria, Kew, Missouri, etc, plus conservation agencies. The collaborative activities will serve to share data and experience, and to offer support to less developed herbaria in order to upgrade their potential in biodiversity identification and evaluation.
Outputs
Electronic information systems
17. Electronic information systems (on plant diversity) - an interactive electronic information system on the diversity, distribution and status of the region's 30 000 species of plants, occupying ecosystems from desert dunes to rain forest. It will be based on appropriate software for decentralised, easy access database at each participating herbarium/research centre and integration of the database with GIS and other information management systems. It will contain multiple tiers of information and be able to directly generate hard copy publications of manuals and products.
18. The database will be developed on the existing information contained (but presently inaccessibly archived) within the region's ten national herbaria, in which over 3 500 000 plant specimens are housed. Repatriation of information from botanical institutions in other countries (Kew, Missouri, Paris) will be undertaken for selected taxa.
19. Checklists (with up-to-date scientific names and main synonyms)
(a) regional and national lists of the flora
(b) lists of IUCN Red Data species, CITES species per country
(c) lists of species of economic importance
20. Distribution data
(a) maps of species distributions by region, country, province or ¼ degree grid
(b) digitized maps of major vegetation types, biomes, ecosystems
(c) relational databases in GIS formats
21. Biodiversity evaluations
(a) evaluation of conservation status of vegetation types/ecosystems/biomes per country and region
(b) identification of botanical diversity 'hot-spots', centres of diversity and endemism
(c) identification of priorities for the establishment of ex-situ living collections
(d) identification of under-surveyed/poorly known taxa or areas
22. Human resource inventory within region
(a) taxonomic expertise
(b) ecological expertise
(c) GIS and data management expertise
(d) medicinal plants expertise
(e) indigenous plant horticultural expertise
23. Infrastructure inventory within region
(a) herbarium facilities, herbarium collections
(b) advanced research facilities (computers, satellite reception, electron microscopes, gene banks, etc)
(c) botanical gardens
24. Collaborative actions
(a) formal establishment of a Southern African Botanical Diversity Network
(b) publication of a Network newsletter
(c) joint field surveys and collecting expeditions
(d) information on trade in indigenous plants
(e) training courses, workshops, symposia
(f) lists of ongoing inventory, survey or research projects
(g) regional publications
(h) identification of regional research and conservation priorities
(i) development of regional botanical gardens conservation strategy
25. Trained personnel 33 post-graduate biodiversity specialists, 39 parataxonomixts, 16 living
collection managers, and 14 higher level biodiversity specialists will provide a core of local expertise in biodiversity assessment and management. In particular:
(a) biodiversity information management
(b) field survey, inventory and monitoring
(c) analysis of conservation priorities
(d) development and management of national collections/herbaria
(e) EIA evaluation
(f) taxonomic research
(g) maintenance of ex-situ living collections of indigenous plants
These staff will provide, through their parent institutions, the in-country technical leadership essential to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Use of outputs
26. All the above outputs relate directly to the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity at national and regional levels for which appropriate local specialist capacity and checklists of a country's plant diversity resources are but minimal requirements. Even South Africa, with a relatively strong tradition in biodiversity assessment, is seriously deficient in accessible information on the world's richest centre of botanical diversity - the Cape Floral Kingdom. The databases and synthetic outputs of the project will be available and appropriate for immediate use in policy and action plans, while the specialist skills and experience developed will provide the human resources essential to southern African countries' urgent need for scientific and technical self-reliance.
Strategy
27. The project described here provides a south/south solution to the problem of the continued dependence of southern African countries on the intellectual resources of the "north", a dependency which will not be broken unless the existing local indigenous human resources are strengthened and made sustainable through a "fast-track" programme of capacity building, infrastructure reinforcement and ongoing networking. This project will complement the work of institutions such as Kew, Missouri, and IUCN which are in the process of developing projects within southern Africa which will support and strengthen the Capacity Building Network proposed here.
RATIONALE FOR GEF FINANCING
28. The project directly builds capacity for the sustainable implementation of all four GEF operational programmes in the southern African region and as such is highly strategic.
29. Relationship to the programme priorities identified by the first Conference of the Parties of the Biodiversity Convention:
(a) promote the utilization of regional and local expertise and be flexible to accommodate national priorities and regional needs ...
(b) identification and monitoring of biodiversity components ...
(c) capacity-building ...
(d) ... promote the sustainability of project benefits; ... and that encourage scientific excellence
30. Relationship to the Guidelines for the First GEF Biodiversity Work Programme in 1995:
(a) fulfill CBD's eligibility criteria
(b) contribute to building regional cooperation in implementing the Convention
(c) promote the utilization of local and regional expertise
(d) assist eligible countries in fulfilling their obligations under the convention
31. Links with the Convention on Biological Diversity
(a) Article 5. Co-operation - Each Contracting Party shall ... co-operate with other Contracting Parties ...
(b) Article 7. Identification and Monitoring -Each Contracting Party shall ... identify components of biological diversity, ... monitor the components of biodiversity, ... maintain and organise, by any mechanism data derived from identification and monitoring activities ...
(c) Article 12. Research and Training - The Contracting Parties shall ... establish and maintain programmes for scientific and technical education and training in measures for the identification, conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity ... and provide support for such education and training for the specific needs of developing countries ...
(d) Article 17. Exchanges of information - Each Contracting Party shall ... facilitate the exchange of information ...
(e) Article 18. Technical and Scientific Co-operation - The Contracting Parties shall ... promote international technical and scientific co-operation ... special attention should be given to the development and strengthening of national capabilities, by means of human resources development and institution building ...
Relationship to the approved GEF Operational Strategy
32. The project responds directly to all the operational criteria of the approved GEF operational strategy in that it is:
(a) Fully country driven and endorsed as a national and regional priority by all participating countries (1.7 & 1.8)
(b) It directly promotes and strengthens human resources and skills (1.9)
(c) It reduces risks from scientific uncertainty by increasing and improving environmental information to support decision making and action (1.11)
(d) It directly addresses root causes of global environmental deterioration through remedying institutional weaknesses
(e) It directly incorporates the best scientific and technological advice from three STAP reviewers who all strongly supported the project
(f) It directly builds capacity, strengthens institutions and increases the availability of information
(g) It requests financing for only those incremental costs associated with the obligations of the countries which are parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(h) It leverages $4.00 million of national funds and $0.6 million of USAID funds.
(i) It encourages international cooperation.
Building Regional Capacity through South/South Cooperation
33. Much of post-colonial Africa has suffered from the paradox of a steady erosion of national collections (of plant and zoological specimens) simultaneous to the rise in international and national concern for biodiversity conservation. As the indigenous and local knowledge and skills base has been eroded, foreign consultants and institutions have rushed in to fill the gap. Local expertise has been drawn away from Africa (to study for higher degrees in northern universities, remote from the realities, needs and environmental circumstances of Africa) and many such graduates either do not return, or if they do, they rapidly enter administrative posts. This situation can only be reversed by an African-based, in-service and carefully targeted capacity and institution building programme.
Catalytic action releasing untapped Potential
34. The project will build on the existing infrastructure and human resources in the region. GEF funding will act as a stimulant and catalyst to create the critical mass of indigenous expertise needed to reap the potential of existing national commitments and to provide for global benefits. A relatively small investment, adding to the existing national commitments, will result in very significant gains.
Global Benefits
35. The project will significantly enhance global knowledge of the 10% of the world's botanical diversity that is situated in the region: over 30,000 plant species; 17 of the global centres of plant diversity; 38% of the world's succulents; the whole of the richest centre of botanical diversity and endemism in the world (the Cape Floristic Kingdom); as well as many world renowned arid (Karoo-Kalahari-Namib); coastal, marine and freshwater (Zambezi delta, Okavango delta, Kafue wetlands); forest (Guineo-Congolian, Usambara/Inhambane, Afro-montane); and mountain (Huambo, Huila, Chimanimani, Nyika, Drakensberg, Mulanje); ecosystems. It will enable the countries of the region to share their own knowledge both with their partners in the region and with the world as a whole. Checklists, distribution maps, and status information on all of the regions 30,000 species of plants and their ecosystems will be prduced. Ex-situ living collections of indigenous plants will be maintained. Dependence of the region on biodiversity scientists and consultants from outside the region will be overcome. The world scientific and conservation community will benefit from dramatically increased knowledge, and availability of knowledge, of the regions flora.
Replication
36. The proposed project, centred as it is in southern Africa, can readily be duplicated in other African countries and in similar regions of the world. The southern African project can be used as a model to test the wider application of an information system based capacity building exercise in developing countries.
SUSTAINABILITY AND PARTICIPATION
Sustainability
37. Governments within the region currently dedicate over US$ 9 million per year to the maintenance of botanical institutions, collections and personnel, in addition to the existing capital investment in buildings and equipment (conservatively estimated at over US$30 million for the region). In addition, the governments have agreed to jointly allocate US$1 million per year towards the goals of this project. The GEF input of US$ 1.2 million per year over four years would amount to approximately 12 per cent of the regional investment in botanical diversity conservation and research activities during the proposed four year project. Hence, the cost of this project is a small percentage of the existing regional commitment. Further, the project will not increase current staffing levels or engender significant increases in recurrent costs. Rather it will improve the ability of the existing staff and institutions to do their job with the resources they currently have available.
38. The intellectual capacity and information system developed through this project will become self-sustaining in many ways, including:
(a) The inherent utility of the information system to national governments in natural resource and development planning, for NEAPs, national biodiversity assessments, etc;
(b) The direct use of the information in relation to ongoing biodiversity assessments in EIAs;
(c) The inherent growth potential of the system, allowing ongoing improvement and expansion to the database and expertise;
(d) The broad base of skills (in information management, biodiversity assessment, field techniques, etc) developed by individuals and institutions will provide empowerment and employment in fields previously exploited by foreign consultants;
(e) The income generating capacity of the system, at individual, institutional and national levels opens new horizons for expanding in-country technological self-sufficiency.
Participation
39. This project proposal is based on recommendations made at successive regional and international conferences for a strengthening of the in-country capacity of plant diversity specialists in southern Africa. The urgent need for a training network in the region was identified as a key priority at meetings of botanists and conservationists in Maputo, Mozambique (February 1990), Zomba , Malawi (April 1991), Bulawayo, Zimbabwe (March 1993), and Cape Town, South Africa (September 1993). The Cape Town meeting brought together over 120 professionals from 14 African countries. The Conference proceedings Botanical Diversity in Southern Africa (Huntley, 1994) includes detailed recommendations from ten working group sessions, each of which supported the proposal for a capacity building network for southern African plant diversity. The need for a rapid transition from conferences, analyses and discussion, to strategic planning and action with tangible benefits, was emphasized at the Cape Town meeting.
40. Arising from the Conference, a pre-proposal was submitted to UNDP in October 1993, simultaneously being distributed widely in southern Africa and to major institutes in Europe and the USA. The draft proposal received strong endorsement regionally, and from colleagues at Kew, Missouri and IUCN. The proposal was further reviewed and redrafted by a workshop of senior personnel from seven southern African countries (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe) at a meeting in Pretoria, September 1994. The review workshop included participation by the principal stakeholders (in herbaria, conservation agencies, NGOs and universities), from throughout the region. The participants called for several additions to the original draft, the most important of these being for special support for participants from Lusophone countries for the inclusion in the programme of a one year post-graduate degree level course and for training in the management of ex-situ living collections. The needs of each participating country might differ slightly from others and these individual needs would have to be considered in the final work plan.
41. Non-governmental Organisations have been directly involved in the development of this proposal from the outset. International NGOs (IUCN, WWF, TRAFFIC, AETFAT, IUBS, SCOPE) have directly or indirectly participated in the numerous conferences and workshops that identified and described the needs presented in this proposal. Regional NGOs (Wildlife Society of Southern Africa, Endangered Wildlife Trust, Botanical Society of Southern Africa, Southern African Nature Foundation) have contributed both financially and through active participation in planning meetings.
42. The review workshop agreed that once funding becomes available a regional Steering Committee be established to guide the further development and execution of the project in consultation with all stakeholders.
LESSONS LEARNED AND TECHNICAL REVIEW
Lessons Learned
43. The GEF financed project "Institutional Support to Protect East African Biodiversity" is similar in a number of ways to this project, though it is much broader in scope and relies on external technical support rather than networking within the region. The mid-term evaluation identified two key issues in the project being the weak influence of the chosen lead institutions in each country and the strong role played by the external Technical Advisor. In this project these problems are avoided due to:
(a) the specialized nature of the subject matter leaving no question as to which national institutions are responsible
(b) the strong commitment already demonstrated by the chosen lead institutions in participating in the development of this project
(c) the networking of existing technical capacity within the region rather than external technical assistance.
Technical Reviews
44. In addition to the detailed comments received from potential participants from throughout the region, the proposal benefitted from the specific technical reviews commissioned by UNDP.
45. Though all the reviews were highly supportive, the suggestions made by the technical reviewers have been addressed in the current draft in order to further strengthen it. In particular:
(a) a more detailed description of the institutional structure including the composition, role and functioning of the steering committee
(b) details of project management arrangements
(c) details of project activities.
PROJECT FINANCING AND BUDGET
46. This project requests a GEF grant of $4.73 million towards the full incremental cost of US$5.32 million over four years. An initial grant of US$596,000 towards the incremental cost of the project has been awarded by USAID. The preparation of this proposal, over a three year period, has been financed by the National Botanical Institute of South Africa, at a cost of US$90,000 for workshops, publications and preliminary training sessions. The governments of the region have agreed to allocate US$4 million toward the project objectives.
47. The requested GEF project budget of US$ 4,724,000 over four years comprises the following components:
(a) Personnel $300,000 for a project coordination office comprising a project manager and assistant, and for locally recruited consultants.
(b) Operating Costs $240,000 for telephone, fax, e-mail, photocopying and other essential administrative functions of the coordinators office, the cost of Steering Committee meetings, and the cost of travel of the Project Coordinators office.
(c) Sub-Contracts $207,000 for the fees of an independent financial auditor, the cost of preparation, publication and distribution of the many reports, evaluations and action plans resulting from the project, the hire of local trainers, and the cost of the final project design.
(d) Training and product development $2,615,000. The overriding philosophy of the project is "learning by doing". Each participating trainee will have clearly defined responsibilities to his/her national institution, such as preparing sections of national floristic checklists, Red Data Books, ecosystem conservation status assessments, etc. The project will cover the costs associated with printing and distributing the publications that result from the project.
Included in this budget line are the costs of field expeditions to national or regionally identified priority areas. These might include sites of proposed new protected areas, biosphere reserves, dams, agricultural projects, etc., where rapid biodiversity assessments are required.
(e) Equipment $615,000. The major substantial needs of the project, in terms of buildings, herbarium facilities, office equipment, vehicles, etc are already available, provided by participating governments. However, in some countries, most notably Angola and Mozambique, these facilities need urgent repair, while additional vehicles, computers, microscopes, etc are needed by each participating institution.
(f) Monitoring and Evaluation $114,000 to cover annual, mid-term and end of project monitoring and evaluations.
(g) Support Costs $204,000 (calculated at 5%)
(h) Contingency $430,000 as 10% of the other costs.
48. Outline project budget - GEF Component, 1996-2000, (US$ 1000s)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Total
Personnel Costs 75 75 75 75 300
Operating Costs 60 60 60 60 240
Subcontracts and 47 30 60 70 207
Activities
Training 283 599 852 881 2,615
Equipment 225 285 55 50 615
Monitoring & Evaluation 12 12 60 30 114
Support Costs 35 53 58 58 204
Subtotal 737 1,114 1,220 1,224 4,295
Contingency 74 112 122 122 430
GEF Component Total 811 1,226 1,342 1,346 4,725
Government Contributions 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 4,000
USAID Contribution 149 149 149 149 596
(USAID)
NBI South Africa 90 0 0 0 90
Overall Project Total 2,050 2,375 2,491 2,495 9,411
49. Notes to the budget:
1. All costs are in US dollars @ US$1 = R3.6 as of December 1995.
2. No inflator has been used from year 1 to year 4. It is assumed the US dollar will strengthen against the southern African currencies over the project period.
3. The project office will need a full-time financial clerk to administer the budget. The cost of these financial services would be drawn from the budget line "support costs".
4. External financial auditing will be undertaken. Fees for this are included in budget line 3.a.
Government Contributions
50. The governments of the region will provide $1 million per annum to cover the costs of secondment, local travel and operating costs, associated with the project.
External Funding
51. An initial grant of US$149,000 per annum has been approved by USAID from October 1995. These funds will be used firstly to cover the participation costs of Angola and Namibia until they have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity. No GEF funds will be allocated to these countries until after full ratification. In addition the National Botanical Institute of South Africa has contributed $90,000 over 3 years to preparation costs, including three regional workshops.
INCREMENTAL COSTS
52. The Incremental Cost calculation is summarized below. Full details are contained in Annex A.
Full cost of GEF alternative is $ 9.411 million (4 years)
Baseline - specific government commitment to the project $ 4.000 million (4 years)
Incremental cost to generate the global
environmental benefits as described above $ 5.411 million (4 years)
Cofinancing of Incremental Cost by USAID/IUCN and
South Africa NBI $ 0.69 million (4 years)
GEF grant requested $ 4.725 million (4 years)
Cost effectiveness
53. Total project cost is US$9.42 million over four years. This will result in building effective capacity of 102 professional and support staff in 10 countries to identify, conserve and use some 30,000 species of flowering plants and ferns (10% of the global flora) within arid, mediterranean, forest, mountain, coastal and wetland ecosystems.
54. The project builds on a number of existing systems and capacities, viz:
(a) the most important component of cost-effectiveness is the fact that the entire exercise is Africa based, is an exercise in south/south development, and that all benefits will remain in the target countries. No non-southern African consultants, infrastructure or running costs are involved. Participation by one or two scientists from Kew or Missouri on the Steering Committee will provide links with these organizations, but will not imply any form of dependence.
(b) the project is regional because it is based on the sharing of collective skills in the region. The project will break the expensive tradition of southern Africans having to go to Europe and America for training and post-graduate studies. The costs of providing training and university education within southern Africa is less than 50% of fees for study in Europe and America, and in some instances might be as little as 20% of the cost of equivalent travel, accommodation and tuition fees.
(c) solutions to Africa's many environmental problems have usually been sought through the introduction of technologies and specialists from developed countries. The project will use locally produced technologies, locally led training courses and is targeted solely at participants from southern African countries for training within the region. It is therefore designed and dedicated to the very specific needs and constraints of participating countries. The frequently experienced problems of technology transfer and adaptation will therefore be avoided, increasing the cost-effectiveness of the overall project in meeting the environmental benefits for which the project is designed.
(d) the PRECIS electronic database. This database has been developed within the region (covering five countries - Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland) over the past 15 years at a cost of over US$ 8 million. It holds detailed voucher information on 800 000 specimens of 22 000 species from throughout the region. A framework is thus immediately available on which each of the participating countries can develop national information systems. For the five countries that are not yet included in the PRECIS system (Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe) upwards of 70% of their taxa are already listed in the PRECIS database. For a very small cost, the full benefits of an existing, tried and tested system will be available.
(e) expensive field operations are not necessary to collect the information. The herbarium material already exists. At a small cost, this vast knowledge store can add very significant value to each national institution which is already carrying the heavy but unproductive cost of maintaining national herbaria.
(f) the prospective candidates for training and graduate studies are already in position. However, their full intellectual potentials have not been realised because they are located in isolated institutions with limited access to leadership, new technologies, the benefits of peer-group interaction and the stimulation of career growth. For limited costs, this existing human resource can be developed into a regional, indigenous corps of professionals.
(g) a particularly significant economy of the project is the fact that participants will be working, at all times, with plants and vegetation that they know intimately and on which they will acquire expertise directly relevant to their professional careers. The opposite is true of Africans having to study alien and unfamiliar floras in Europe and American training centres. The result of the project will be immediately applicable to each participant.
ISSUES, ACTIONS AND RISKS
55. Care will be needed to ensure fair and transparant sharing of resources between the ten participating countries. The countries are widely divergent in socio-economic, ecological and biodiversity terms. Similarly, their infrastructure, technical capacity, and governmental environmental policies differ widely. Although provisional allocations have been determined it will be the task of the Steering Committee to determine the level and nature of support allocated to each participating organization, according to carefully defined and agreed criteria.
56. The two lusophone countries, Angola and Mozambique, will require special support to ensure that they are not disadvantaged due to language. Again, the Steering Committee will assist.
57. Past experience shows that, as a result of the extreme scarcity of technically qualified and within-country trained specialists on biodiversity in southern Africa, the project trainees become prime targets for agencies recruiting such expertise for EIA's, ecotourism projects, consultancies, etc. Paradoxically, the problem will not be one of ensuring long term employment for the trainees, but rather of retaining them within the botanical diversity institutions, and within the region. This risk is not a reason for stopping the project but is rather a challenge to the participating institutions to devise ways in which their staff can contribute to such exercises from within their institutions, so retaining and building the institutional expertise, as well as enhancing the financial viability of these institutions and thus also the sustainability of project benefits.
INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
58. The project calls for close collaboration at several levels. First, through the UN system, the leadership and guidance of UNDP and UNEP will be critical at both national and regional levels. Secondly, the project links with the inter-governmental activities of the Southern African Development Community. Thirdly, existing regional activities of NGO groups such as IUCN (especially through its Regional Office for Southern Africa), the ICSU system (especially the Diversitas programme of UNESCO/IUBS/SCOPE), and the Taxonomy and Nomenclature programme of IUBS, plus the members of AETFAT, offer excellent opportunities for linkages with colleagues and ongoing activities.
59. With regard to the implementing agencies, ie. the National Herbaria and Universities, participation in the project will imply a range of responsibilities which will be clearly defined and negotiated via appropriate government Ministries. In view of the different structures of administration in the ten potential participating countries, it is not appropriate to generalise on the form that such arrangements should take.
60. The project will be coordinated and guided by a Steering Committee comprising representatives of each participating country. The chairperson of the Steering Committee will be elected by its members, and supported by the Project Coordinator's office. It is proposed that the Steering Committee be strengthened by inclusion of representatives of UNDP, IUCN's ROSA office, and independent scientific advisors from either Kew or Missouri Botanical Gardens.
61. The Steering Committee will meet twice annually, in different participating countries in rotation and by mutual agreement.
62. The Steering Committee will be required to:
(a) Review and monitor the overall project plan and strategy;
(b) Ensure that the standards and relevance of the training and graduate courses are acceptable;
(c) Evaluate the progress of each participant and recommend action where necessary;
(d) Prepare recommendations on financial arrangements to UNDP.
63. Within each participating country, a Working Group will be established to provide support and input to the project participants. The Working Groups might comprise:
(a) National project leader (usually the Director of the National Herbarium);
(b) Representative of a university botany faculty;
(c) Representative of UNDP;
(d) Representative of IUCN or other NGO;
(e) Representative of the ministry responsible for botanical/conservation matters.
64. The overall management and administrative responsibility for the project will rest with the National Botanical Institute, South Africa. Adequate office and infrastructural facilities are available at the National Herbarium, Pretoria, for coordinating and administrative staff, as are lecture halls, laboratories, library, computing facilities, herbaria and living collections. The financial administration of funds will be coordinated by the Institute's accounting division and subject to annual statutory audits and reporting to the Executing Agency.
65. The execution of the project will require ongoing collaboration between NGOs, CBOs and governmental institutions. Community based organisations (particularly in the field of traditional medicines) will contribute to and benefit from the improved knowledge base and sustained resource use that will result from the project.
66. Private sector involvement will be critical to the long term sustainability of the programme. The expertise developed by the project (in information management, resource inventory, biodiversity prospecting, environmental impact assessment, etc will have direct commercialization value which the participating institutes can market within the private sector. The continuing erosion of indigenous intellectual property and expertise by the use of foreign, expatriate consultants in southern Africa, rather than locally born and trained professionals, will be reversed by this project.
Table 1. A comparison of herbarium resources in southern Africa.
(see Baijnath H, and Nicholas, A. Herbaria: human and infrastructural needs in southern Africa. In Huntley, B J, 1994 Botanical Diversity in southern Africa. Strelitzia 1:1-175-199).
Table 2. Comparison of some basic facilities needed for running both an efficient and effective herbarium.
Table 3. A comparison of herbarium resources, plant diversity, human populations and economic factors in southern Africa, Australia, Brazil and the USA.
Table 4. Schedule of Planning and Implementation Activities
Work to Date
Sept 1993. Review of botanical diversity conservation in southern Africa at regional conference, Cape Town. Specific recommendations for a capacity building network.
Oct 1993. Submission of a pre-proposal to UNDP. Circulation to southern African specialists.
Apr 1994. Elections in South Africa, re-admission to the world community.
July 1994. Pilot training course for southern African herbarium managers, Pretoria.
Sept 1994. Review workshop of Capacity Building proposal, attended by senior representatives of seven national collections.
Sept 1994. Submission of revised proposal to UNDP. Circulation to all potential southern African participants for comment.
Nov 1994. Redraft proposal submitted to UNDP.
Apr 1996. Submission of proposal to GEF Council.
Implementation Schedule
Year 1
Mth 1 Receipt of initial funding. Regional planning workshop on training timetable, funding, logistics, etc
Mth 2/3 Purchase of equipment, selection of candidates
Mth 4 First training course (1 month, Pretoria)
Mths 5/9 Development of databases in-situ in participating national institutes
Mth 10 Review workshop and training course
Mths 11/12 Consolidation of methods, implementation in-situ
Year 2
Mths 1/6 Development of database for high priority taxa (eg legumes, grasses, timber trees, medicinal plants, threatened and CITES spp, etc)
Mth 7 Review workshop and training course
Mth 8/12 Continuation of database development
Year 3
Mths 1/12 Graduate course in plant taxonomy for specialists, courses in para-taxonomy for support staff
Mths 1/12 Continuation of database development
Publication of first checklists, biodiversity assessments, etc
Year 4
Mth 1 Regional review workshop
Mths 2/5 Completion of species checklists, preliminary syntheses, etc
Mths 7/12 Consolidation of project products, institutional facilities, training courses
Mths 10/12 External evaluation of project
Planning of processes for independent resources for continuation of project
CALCULATION OF INCREMENTAL COSTS
BROAD DEVELOPMENT GOALS
1. All 10 countries in the region have existing institutions and facilities dedicated to the inventory, evaluation, sustainable use, and monitoring of their botanical resources. Eight of the countries have ratified the convention on biological diversity, and all have strong environmental programmes. The countries of the region wish to enhance their ability to identify, conserve, and sustainably use their botanical resources. The need to enhance this capacity has been identified as the highest priority for the conservation and development of botanical resources within the region by a series of workshops involving government and NGO partners from throughout the region.
BASELINE
2. With the notable exception of South Africa, and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe, all the countries of the region have very limited capacity to inventory, evaluate and monitor botanical diversity (see Table 1). Although they all have existing institutions, buildings and facilities these are both limited and, in many cases, rudimentary. There are very few fully trained botanists. Outputs by way of publications, environmental impact assessments, and other biodiversity studies and assessments, are limited. They are generally produced by scientists and consultants from outside the region. Although much information on the botanical resources of each country exists, it is often of little use because collections are not accessible through computerized data-bases and are often deteriorating.
3. Although South Africa has adequate capacity with respect to the above needs, collaboration between botanical research institutes, herbaria and botanical gardens is informal and fragmented at a regional level. However, recognizing the potential of regional collaboration, and the potential contribution of South Africa to enhancing the capacity of the other botanical institutions in the region, the countries of the region have committed to creating a regional network to build human and institutional capacity to inventory, evaluate and monitor botanical diversity within the region. The governments of the region have agreed to jointly allocate US$4 million over four years towards the achievement of this goal.
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVE
4. The project will significantly enhance global knowledge of the 10% of the world's botanical diversity that is situated in the region: over 30,000 plant species; 17 of the global centres of plant diversity; 38% of the world's succulents; the whole of the richest centre of botanical diversity and endemism in the world (the Cape Floristic Kingdom); as well as many world renowned arid (Karoo-Kalahari-Namib); coastal, marine and freshwater (Zambezi delta, Okavango delta, Kafue wetlands); forest (Guineo-Congolian, Usambara/Inhambane, Afro-montane); and mountain (Huambo, Huila, Chimanimani, Nyika, Drakensberg, Mulanje) ecosystems. It will enable the countries of the region to share their own knowledge both with their partners in the region and with the world as a whole. Checklists, distribution maps, and status information on all of the regions 30,000 species of plants and their ecosystems will be prduced. Ex-situ living collections of indigenous plants will be maintained. Dependence of the region on biodiversity scientists and consultants from outside the region will be overcome. The world scientific and conservation community will benefit from dramatically increased knowledge, and availability of knowledge, of the region's flora.
GEF ALTERNATIVE
5. The GEF incremental financing will:
(a) train 33 biodiversity specialists at the post-graduate level, 39 parataxonomists, 16 living collection managers, and 14 higher level biodiversity specialists;
(b) complete the PRECIS database and electronic network within the region, repatriate selected taxa information from Kew, Missouri and Paris, and integrate this with full GIS capacities;
(c) generate checklists, distribution maps and status reports;
(d) identify biodiversity "hot-spots", under-surveyed areas, pressure points, within the region, and priorities for ex-situ collections;
(e) establish a collaborating network of institutions and professionals within the region.
SYSTEM BOUNDARY
6. Geographically the project is limited to the 10 participating countries. Later additional countries may join the network but this is outside the boundaries of this project.
7. The institutions involved are the national focal point institutions. There will be benefits to associated universities and other institutions such as herbaria, museums, botanical gardens, etc. associated with the project activities.
8. The biodiversity affected will be almost exclusively botanical, though the identification of "hot-spots" etc. has benefits to other biodiversity sectors.
INCIDENTAL DOMESTIC BENEFITS
9. Incidental domestic benefits are diffuse and will be difficult to quantify. Institutions and agencies which will benefit from the new capacity and information include national environment departments, protected area agencies, forest departments, agriculture departments, etc. Domestic benefits also include information benefits to private sector interests dealing with the exploitation of the regions plant resources, both for direct export and breeding (such as cut flowers). Planning and industrial sectors will benefit from increased regional capacity to conduct EIA's, hence reducing the costs of reliance on outside experts and consultants.
COSTS
10. Full cost of GEF alternative $ 9.411 million (4 years)
Cost of baseline activity $ 4.000 million (4 years)
Incremental cost to generate the global environmental benefits
as described above $ 5.411 million (4 years)
Cofinancing of Incremental Cost by USAID/IUCN and
South Africa NBI $ 0.686 million (4 years)
GEF grant requested $ 4.725 million (4 years)
11. Incremental Cost Matrix
Costs Domestic Benefits & Global Environmental
Disbenefits Benefits & Disbenefits
Full Cost US$ 9.411 Enhanced capacity of Increased knowledge of,
of GEF million national institutions to and accessibility to
Alternativ inventory, evaluate and knowledge of, regions
e monitor botanical botanical diversity.
diversity. Effective and timely
inventory, evaluation and
monitoring of botanical
diversity within region
by scientists and
institutions within the
region. This capacity is
self-sustaining and
regenerating without
dependence on outsiders.
Cost of US$ 4.000 Somewhat improved Existing knowledge of
Baseline million knowledge of botanical regions botanical
Activities diversity at national diversity not accessible.
level through limited Dependence on
exchange and networking. biodiversity scientists
However, insufficient and consultants from
capacity within national outside the region means
institutions to botanical diversity
effectively inventory, conservation less
monitor and evaluate effective than it might
botanical diversity in be.
the region, either Requirements of
pro-actively or in Convention on Biological
response to specific Diversity unfulfilled.
development pressures.
ie. dependence on
northern technical
expertise and
institutions continues.
Existing human and
institutional capacities
not effectively or fully
utilized.
Ex-situ collections
maintained.
Incrementa US$ 5.411 - train 33 biodiversity - complete the PRECIS
l Costs million specialists at the database and electronic
post-graduate level, 39 network within the
parataxonomists, 16 region, repatriate
US$ 4.725 living collection selected taxa information
million managers, and 14 higher from Kew, Missouri and
requested from level biodiversity Paris, and integrate this
GEF specialists; with full GIS capacities;
- establish a - generate checklists,
collaborating network of distribution maps and
institutions and status reports;
professionals within the - identify regional
region. biodiversity "hot-spots",
under-surveyed areas,
pressure points, and
priority areas for
collection for ex-situ
protection.
AGREEMENT
12. As a result of the extensive consultation process spanning 3 years and including three regional workshops, basic agreements exist with all government agencies and institutions involved on the financing of the project: government and institutional commitments, co-financing by USAID and NBI, etc.
insert endorsement letters
TECHNICAL REVIEW
REGIONAL: INVENTORY, EVALUATION
AND MONITORING OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA:
A REGIONAL CAPACITY AND INSTITUTION BUILDING NETWORK
1. I have reviewed the "project brief" for the above referenced project in as much detail as the material presented would allow. Conceptually, this is equivalent to the best biodiversity project for GEF that I have reviewed. Obviously, with the absence of details about institutional arrangements, it is not possible to determine, with any degree of certainty, how those arrangements will function: but the overall thrust of the project is so suitable and so impressive to me that I am pleased to be able to endorse it in the strongest possible terms.
2. This project is highly relevant to global environmental concerns, in that it will help to build sustainable systems, capable of dealing with biodiversity, in the ten countries of Southern Africa. As brought out in the proposal, these countries are home to approximately one-twelfth of the world's species of plants; The appropriate management of the intricate communities and ecosystems that these plants compromise is a subject that can be addressed properly only if the seriously deficient institutional and manpower situations in all countries of the region except South Africa are addressed as a matter of urgency priority. Furthermore, in South Africa itself, the continuation of the well-established infrastructure and of the employment of the individuals who are concerned with biodiversity is a matter of high priority, so that what has been built up there can be maintained and put into the service of the whole region. I shall now move on to address the specific areas listed for coverage in the outline that I was provided.
RELEVANCE TO GEF
3. As I have mentioned in by brief introduction above, this project is exceedingly important to the realization of the aims of GEF and CBD, providing as it will the means for addressing effectively the conservation of plant biodiversity in this region with its great biological biodiversity and large numbers of people dependant directly on the sustainability of that biological diversity for their livelihood. By helping to make clear the connection between human survival and the preservation of species, and by bringing that lesson home on a continuing basis in each country, this project will be of critical importance for addressing the aims of GEF in biodiversity.
OBJECTIVES
4. The objectives of this project are well articulated and certainly valid. Short-term actions have very little relevance in the long-term preservation of biodiversity, whereas the strengthening of infrastructure and personnel envisioned in this proposal will have long-term sustaining effects on this problem. In such a way, this program overcomes the many difficulties associated with others that I have reviewed. Certainly its objectives can be achieved with the kinds of activities that are outlined here, although funding on a continuing basis will probably be necessary in order to maintain these capabilities. Given the increasing local, regional, and global interest in biodiversity, however, and the realization of how directly it provides the context for human survival, it is likely that governmental allocations for the objectives of this proposal will be increased also. Since details of the specific activities are not given in this proposal, I cannot comment on them except in this general way; I have every confidence, however that they are both appropriate and necessary, from what I have read and from what I know personally about Brian Huntley and his capabilities.
APPROACH
5. The approach outlined here is absolutely sound socially, technically, and in every other sense. Building a database on the plant biodiversity of Southern Africa and training people in the countries involved to deal with that information for their own benefit is clearly a matter of great interest. Instead of countries included here, it is entirely appropriate, although one hopes that eventually these sorts of activities might be expanded throughout Africa.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
6. It is complete and fully informative at his level.
FUNDING LEVEL
7. Insofar as one can judge from this brief proposal, the funding level is appropriate.
INNOVATION
8. The regionalization of the attention to plants is one of the innovative aspects of this proposal and, in addition, the use of human and institutional resources on a regional basis to strengthen and build national capability is (unfortunately - it should be the standard) extremely valuable and innovative also.
STRENGTH/WEAKNESSES
9. I consider the greatest strength of this proposal its regional approach and its focus on durable ways of addressing plant biodiversity. I used the word "durable" because building institutional and personal infrastructure is clearly the key to long-term sustainability. I have not identified any significant weaknesses in the proposal, and it would be difficult to do so at this level of description.
10. Moving on to a few more general comments, I found the way in which these activities
were described in relation to the convention on biological diversity particularly attractive and compelling. I have no doubt that many of the countries involved would find it nearly impossible to comply fully with the CBD requirements, even though they be signatories, without the kind of development that is outlined here. The fact that the program has been developed through a soundly-conceived series of regional conferences in important and the promises of international support are key to its success also, given the global nature of information about plants. Partly, for political reasons, regional collaboration here has been fragmentary; and yet this region now has the potential for providing an inspirational model for the entire world in the field of interinstitutional collaboration, a trend without which the preservation of biological biodiversity on a sustainable basis will not prove possible.
11. The strong development of the PRECIS database in South Africa, and the potential for spreading its coverage to several other important and botanically rich countries, with the attendant benefits for institutional and personal development, is outstanding. Certainly the training courses, graduate studies, planning, and collaborative activities that are mentioned briefly sound like exactly the thing to do in terms of implementing a program of this sort. The output of the program, in terms of training specialists, will be, in itself, an extremely important contribution to the conservation of plant biodiversity within the region.
12. I believe the discussion of development dimensions in this proposal is especially well done and urge that it be strengthened in the elaboration of the action plan.
13. In summary, I am delighted to see this program moving forward and pleased that I am able to endorse this base project brief in the strongest possible terms.
TECHNICAL REVIEW
REGIONAL: INVENTORY, EVALUATION
AND MONITORING OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA:
A REGIONAL CAPACITY AND INSTITUTION BUILDING NETWORK
RELEVANCE TO GEF
1. The main goal of this proposal, namely to develop a corps of specialists in plant science and diversity in Southern Africa to respond to the needs for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and of strategies by the countries in region, and by the region as a whole, for the conservation and sustainable use of the enormously wealthy plant resources of the area, is an eminently laudable one and fully relevant to the purposes of the GEF (biodiversity).
OBJECTIVES
2. The region houses a disproportionately large amount of the world's vascular plant species and resources and this places a very difficult burden on the countries concerned, even for South Africa which has considerable scientific and technical capacity and institutional resources in the fields concerned.
3. The effectiveness and validity of the project will depend on how it is interpreted. The main emphasis is on information gathering, management and handling which is certainly an important component of any strategy for the implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity, but not in itself sufficient as the proposers certainly realize. As discussed below under Approach it is not entirely clear just how the objective of capacity building for biodiversity can be achieved by such an approach.
4. The needs of the countries concerned in implementing the CBD are much wider than what is outlined in the proposal although the Outputs listed in Table 2 imply a broad approach. I should like to see the needs (other than information handling) spelled out more clearly and the proposed actions related to these. For example, the implementation of the CBD will require specialists in the fields of conservation biology; conservation management; genetic resource collection, storage, management and monitoring; restoration, introduction, reintroduction, and rehabilitation; land use planning; networking, economic evaluation; ethnobotanical studies; floristic studies; etc etc etc, without which the data gathered and managed cannot be converted into conservation and sustainable use activities as laid down in the Articles of the Convention. Also what are the institutional and capacity building needs for areas such as gene banks for wild species, botanic garden facilities for conservation (including seed banks, seed physiology, in vitro facilities, etc.) for assessing genetic variability in populations (isozynes, RAPDs, RFLPs etc), and so on.
APPROACH
5. The first of the Activities listed in the proposal is Planning Workshops, no details of which are given, nor are they specifically identified in the proposed budget. Obviously such meetings will be needed.
6. The second Activity is Training Courses in computer database development and management. It is not clear how many people would participate in these, who they would be, whether they would be the same as those attending the Graduate studies courses or not, how they would be deployed once trained, whether they would be professional or support staff, etc. Some clarification is needed.
7. The third Activity, Graduate Studies, refers to one-year course in plant diversity evaluation and taxonomy, "providing them with the advanced training necessary for them to assume leadership positions in their national institutes". This is highly ambitious and a major component of the project, as presumably the personnel selected would be responsible within their home Institutions for many of the outputs listed in Table 2 once trained. Some clues need to be given as to how these graduate studies would be organized, where, who would teach them, whether the capacity is currently available, what the syllabus would be, what options would be available, etc etc. Having organized many graduate courses, of various durations, I know only too well how critical the selection of candidates is and also the need to think through clearly what the objectives are, what is feasible within the time-scale proposed, which elements of the syllabus are core, which are optional, what are optional, what the balance between course work and practical and field experience, etc.
8. The fourth Activity Collaborative Activities refers essentially to field expeditions but the objectives need to be more clearly stated and not just related to training and supplementation of the database. With the budget proposed for these activities I would expect some more concrete resource collection and conservation activities to be undertaken.
9. The countries included in the project are appropriate as are the contact persons (three of them are former students of mine!).
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
10. The background information given is very limited, even for South Africa. I would like to see a country-by-country summary of the institutional facilities and staffing capacity for each of the countries concerned, in terms of herbaria, libraries, germplasm collections, botanic gardens, arboreta, in vitro, etc. etc., and in terms of protected areas. Also an evaluation of the PRECIS electronic database, which it is proposed should be used as the basis for further technical development, would be appropriate.
FUNDING LEVELS
11. I find it difficult to interpret the two sections of the budget (A and B) in relation to the activities listed in the proposal. Also it is difficult to assess the adequacy of the allowance made for fellowships for trainees - the figure seems too low - or for equipment - the figures seem too high. If one takes into account the other areas I have outlined, then the whole budget would need recasting and probably a substantial increase.
12. The year on cost increments for staffing seem either unduly generous or pessimistic in terms of anticipated inflation!
INNOVATION
13. What is innovative about this proposal is its specific emphasis on plant resources which is uncommon in the GEF portfolio to date. It also emphasizes (too much in my view) the needs for adequate information and its handling and management. It addresses one of the critical global conservation problems in this regard, namely how to cope with the conservation and sustainable use of over a tenth of the world's plant resources by a group of, on the whole, relatively poor countries.
14. The greatest weakness of the project is its apparently narrow approach to what is a highly complex and multidisciplinary set of problems, namely a capacity building network for southern African biodiversity, Also, the whole project seems very much biased towards South Africa as the basis for developing the activities outlined and little or no indication is given as to the existing capacity in the other countries in the region.
TECHNICAL REVIEW
REGIONAL: INVENTORY, EVALUATION
AND MONITORING OF BOTANICAL DIVERSITY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA:
A REGIONAL CAPACITY AND INSTITUTION BUILDING NETWORK
RELEVANCE TO GEF
1. This proposal is directly relevant to the goals of the GEF. It addresses what has been called the "taxonomic impediment" or the "second biodiversity crisis," namely the shortage of personnel qualified to discover, describe, and document biological diversity. It is a goal of the GEF to train scientists of developing countries to have the capacity themselves to deal with issues concerning biological diversity conservation. This proposal will go a long way towards this goal with respect to botanical diversity in southern Africa: the plan is to train 20-40 specialists and 30-60 support staff to self-sustaining levels. Furthermore, if the databasing of plant specimen information is carried out as planned, this would provide electronic access to detailed data on approximately 30,000 species, more than 10% of the world's flora, and this too is a central component of the GEF's mission.
OBJECTIVES
2. The objectives are completely valid and focussed. There is really no other way to achieve the stated goals of capacity building other than to undertake the sort of training proposed by Dr. Huntley and colleagues.
APPROACH
3. The approach is precisely that which this reviewer would undertake if he were in Dr. Huntley's position. It is clearly defined, appropriate and technically sound. The countries involved (i.e., Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) are appropriate for this proposal;, as is the country of South Africa appropriate to be the leader in this important regional effort.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
4. The information provided in the proposal is quite complete and relevant. This reviewer can find no omissions or areas of weakness in the background coverage.
FUNDING LEVEL
5. The funding requested is modest relative to the task at hand. This is not a bloated budget, nor one that is inappropriate. There is no reason not to award the full amount requested, for this is a botanically important region of the world that is not well inventoried. To award less will undermine the efforts to provide sustained capacity building of the botanical community in the region.
INNOVATION
6. Dr. Huntley and colleagues have devised a strategy that is entirely African-based. They intend to employ locally produced technologies and have locally led training courses that are targeted only at participants from southern African countries. This innovation (for such projects often rely on technology or teachers from developed countries) will avoid the pitfalls of attempting technology transfer and adaptation. This is all meritorious, and the principal investigators are to be congratulated for their focus in this regard.
STRENGTHS/WEAKNESSES
7. The principal strength lies in the credentials of the principal investigator. They are excellent, and this reviewer cannot think of anyone more qualified to carry out the important work proposed. The principal weakness lies in the ambitious schedule, which promises quite a lot within a four-year period. There is nothing wrong to be ambitious, but it would not be surprising if some of the outputs anticipated are not delayed for several years beyond stated target dates.
8. In summary, this is an important, soundly thought-out proposal, requesting a modest, appropriate budget for the GEF goal of self-empowering local scientists in a developing region of southern Africa to deal with their own issues of biodiversity conservation. There is no need for a more detailed or lengthy review, as the subject matter is completely straightforward and an obvious one for the GEF to fund if one is to be serious about stemming the tide of plant species extinction through rational understanding of the botanical diversity of this important area.
