Report of the Second MedWetCoast Regional Advisory Committee Tour du Valat – France, 27-29 June, 2002 December 2002

MWC Publication : 102002

Content of the report 1.

General context of the RAC2 Meeting

2.

Summary of the RAC2 meeting and its recommendations 2.1. Presentation of the national and regional developments 2.2. RAC2 recommendations related to project implementation 2.3. Presentation of the sustainability strategy and the Mid-Term Review 2.3.1. Presentation of the sustainability strategy 2.3.2. Presentation of the Mid-Term Review 2.4. RAC2 recommendations related to project sustainability and MidTerm Review 2.4.1. Recommendations related to the sustainability strategy 2.4.2. Recommendations related to the Mid-Term Review

3.

Main conclusions of the RAC2 meeting

4.

Summary of the technical meeting and its recommendations 4.1. Summary of technical presentations 4.2. Recommendations of the technical session 4.2.1. Recommendations related to management plans 4.2.2. Recommendations related to participatory approaches 4.2.3. Recommendations related to training programme

ANNEXES ANNEX 1. Agenda of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians ANNEX 2. List of participants of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians ANNEX 3. Proposed TORs for the Mid-term Review ANNEX 4. Presentations of the technical session ANNEX 5. Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of the management plans (April-June 2002)

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 2 of 18

1. General context of the Regional Advisory Committee Meeting In accordance with the MedWetCoast project document and manual of procedures, the objectives of the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) meetings are to constitute a forum of discussions at the highest level whereby contributing to the maintenance of the project’s global strategic vision and to promote exchange between participants to allow for the transfer of good practices and lessons learned through the experiences of each Mediterranean country. We recall that the responsibilities of the Regional Advisory Committee are the following: - orients the progress of the project in conformity with the project document; - evaluates the project’s state of advancement on the regional and national levels; - evaluates the actions and validates the regional facilitation’s annual report of activities - ratifies the regional component’s annual work plan; - develops synergy with other actions on the regional level. - examines the evaluation report at mid-course. Although it was planned that the Second RAC (RAC2) of the MedWetCoast project would be held in Albania, the RAC2 venue was changed in and held at Tour du Valat in France, in order to allow the RAC members to interact with the participants of the study tour that was organized in parallel to the RAC meeting for national and local politicians involved in MedWetCoast Project. The programme and participants of both the RAC2 meeting and of the study tour are attached in Annexes 1 and 2 of the report. The study tour was organized as a first effort to promote policy reform for coastal and wetland conservation through the project and will be followed by several activities along the same line, including the coming up regional seminar on national wetlands policies. The RAC members could accordingly from one side present the main developments of the national project developments to their national counterparts whom had participated to the study tour, thus sensitizing the concerned national politicians of the various opportunities as well as of the challenges that face the projects at the national level. On the other side, the politicians participating to the study tour could also express their views to the project partners regarding the relevance of activities such as the study tour. It was clear that all the participants have appreciated the exposure to the French policies in coastal and wetlands management, the contacts with French politicians was also considered as a value added to this trip. The RAC2 members included all national and regional project partners as well as the funding and executing agencies. The meeting working document was sent to all RAC2 members prior to their arrival and included the national and regional Annual Progress Reports for 2001 and the work plans for 2002. Along with the working document, a draft strategy paper prepared by an independent consultant for the Regional Facilitation Unit (RFU) on the “Sustainability within the MedWetCoast Project” was also forwarded to RAC2 participants.

2 Summary of the RAC2 meeting and its recommendations 2.1. Presentation of the national and regional project developments In addition to the presentations of the national and regional developments by the respective project managers, the Regional Facilitator presented an overall assessment

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 3 of 18

of the project developments since the RAC1. The presentation covered a comprehensive reporting on the main developments of the project based on the common logical framework of the project. This was done in a tabulated form (Table 1 below). The information in Table 1 were taken from the national and Regional Annual Progress Reports (APRs), and from the reports of the national Tripartite Reviews which were held between February and March 2002 for all project components except Lebanon. The table was further updated based on the national and regional contributions to the Project Implementation Report (PIR) submitted to GEF/UNDP in June 2002. The table presented in this report was further reviewed based on the various comments provided by the RAC2 members.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 4 of 18

Table 1. Main project achievements related to the common project outputs and indicators for the period June 2001- June 2002 Immediate Objective 1.National policies and tools to address policy-related root causes of the loss of wetland and coastal biodiversity are promoted and capacity is developed

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Outputs

Indicators

Actual Level Achieved

National wetland policy/strategy is developed and adopted (compliant with Ramsar convention?)

Not planned in 2001.

Financial and human resources allocated to implement policy/strategy

N/A

1.2 Cross-sectoral planning at the national level

Set up and operation of a representative National Steering Committee (RAC for the RFU)

1.3 A legal and regulatory framework that provides the basis for durable, efficient protection of wetlands with significant biodiversity

Development and adoption of legal instruments for site protection, (land acquisition, land use/zoning, etc.).

National Steering Committees established in all countries except Lebanon. National Steering Committees not operational in: Tunisia, Morocco Number of meetings in 2001: Albania:3, Egypt:2, Palestine A.:1 Minutes of meetings available TORs for legal diagnosis produced by RFU and disseminated for adaptation. National outputs include: Albania: Legal gap assessment Egypt: Preliminary legal study Tunisia: TORs for the five years plan

1.1 A national policy framework that addresses the root causes of the policy deficiencies that have led to biodiversity loss.

Page 5 of 18

Immediate Objective 2.The root causes of biodiversity loss in key demonstration sites are removed, and sites are protected.

Outputs 2.1 Improved information base

2.2 Biophysical and Socio-Economic Monitoring systems for each site

2.3 Site management committees

2.4 Site management plans

Indicators

Actual Level Achieved

Completion of site diagnosis studies (bio-physical and socio-economic) within 18 months

Site diagnosis studies and consolidated reports available in: Egypt, Albania, Tunisia, Palestine A. Site diagnosis almost completed in Morocco Production of MWDB and habitat maps underway in all countries

Establish and make available site databases

Data to be available in autumn 2002

Monitoring programme established and operational

Monitoring programmes not yet developed, but some surveillance activities are underway: Albania: hydrological and water quality

Minimum of 2 (?) monitoring visits per week

N/A

Number and type of surveys carried out

N/A

Establish functional local management committee/task force

Local steering committees established in: Albania, Egypt, Tunisia, Local steering committees not established in: Palestine A., Morocco

Minimum of one local management committee meetings per month

Number of meetings: Albania: 2 meetings /year Egypt: 4-7 meetings/ year Tunisia: 2 meetings/year The main aspects of management plans were established in two regional meetings: Zaranik and Azraq, a regional framework was developed by the RFU Development of management plans are initiated in Egypt, and Palestine A. Necessary administrative procedures undertaken in Tunisia. Management plans are expected in end 2002 A prototype annual work plan was proposed by the RFU for adaptation by national components Work plans will be developed once the objectives are identified with the support of international experts expected in spring 2002

The management plan is established and approved by the local management committee.

Inclusion of the annual work plan within the management plan

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 6 of 18

Immediate Objective

Outputs 2.5 Local management units

Indicators

Actual Level Achieved

Status of staffing of local management unit

Availability of financial and material resources for local management unit

2.6 On-site protection of biodiversity

2.7 Public Awareness and engagement

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Staffing of local units in place but not always sufficient to respond to local needs Work plans of local units not available Not all necessary equipment provided for the local unit: limited access to communication tools and equipment, limited access to necessary information

Mandated and recognized for coordinating the execution of the project at the local level

ToRs and mandate of local units not clear enough for ensuring institutional responsibility in most countries

Legal protection of site

Legal development at sites level: Albania: Drafting legal text for the sites underway, active local mobilisation to protect the sites Egypt: Law 102, enforcement by protectorates staff Morocco: sites not yet protected by law, protection through DRFO staff Palestine A.: Law established in 2000, green police and rangers have limited access to the site Tunisia: sites not yet protected by law, protection of sites secured through APAL and CRDA staff

Concrete actions taken for the protection and conservation of biodiversity

Albania-Narta: Dredging of channel and cleaning of forest Egypt-Burulllus: Clearing and dredging of bugas and canals Egypt-Omayed: banning of grazing and quarrying, rehabilitation of roman wells Egypt-Zaranik: Purchase of engines for boats Morocco-Moulouya and Beni Snassen: protection activities continued through DREFO Palestine A.-Wada Gaza: clearing of debris in wadi bed Tunisia-Korba: Fencing of the site, cleaning of solid waste Extensive media and awareness activities in Albania, Egypt, Palestine A. and Tunisia

Involvement of the population in media activities

Page 7 of 18

Immediate Objective 3. "Closing of the Mediterranean circle" through cost-effective regional networking for transfer of lessons, interchange and training

Outputs 3.1 Regional networking, sharing of experience and publication

3.2 Training of all concerned project counterparts

Indicators

Actual Level Achieved

Number of national partners engaged in regional meetings

All national partners involved in regional meetings Contacts were made with Ramsar, MedWet and MAP to define policy orientations

Frequency of regional and national counterparts are interacting and communicating

Regional meetings and RAC as a forum for interactions of both national and regional partners

Number and type of publications prepared and distributed Number of workshops offered and attended by national counterparts

Bilateral discussion on-going but not officially recorded 10 regional publications including 1 MW Publication Series RFU: 2 regional trainings and 1 regional study tour Albania: no national training Egypt: 5 national trainings Palestine A.: no national training Tunisia: 1national training, 1 national study tour Post evaluations are positive

Level of skills acquisition related to training session Number of modules and methodologies disseminated through trainings

Adoption of standardized methodologies: 1. Guidelines for Reporting on site diagnosis studies: (MedWetCoast Publication N° 01-2001) : adopted by all countries. 2. Common framework for the management plans (MedWetCoast Publication N° 01-2002): implementation underway in most countries 3. Common GIS protocol (MedWetCoast Publication N° 03-2002): implementation underway.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 8 of 18

The presentation of the project development has also addressed the financial delivery of the various project components from the outset of the project to the date of the RAC2 meeting. A comparison between the deliveries of the GEF funding of the various project components was made and presented to the RAC2 members (Table 2 below). Table 2. Financial delivery of the GEF funding of MedWetCoast from project start (September 1999) till June 2002 Country Cumulative actual disbursemen t ($) Total budget($) Level of expenditures of total budget(%)

Albania 532 000

Egypt 1 013 788

Morocco 287 000

Palestine A. 449 461

Tunisia 333 000

RFU/TDV 845 659

1 751 000 30%

2 884 000

2 873 700

540 000

2 575 000

1 742 880

35%

10%

83%

13%

50%

It was noted by the RAC2 members that the information available in Table2 doesn’t provide a complete picture of the overall disbursements of the national project budget, as the the French GEF funds and national contributions towards the project are not considered in this table, and the rate of disbursement could be different if these are accounted. The presentation of the overall assessment of the project covered also the implementation issues related to the functioning of the project as well as issues related to the execution of agreed methodologies. The RAC members raised several observations with regards to this assessment which were then taken into consideration by the RAC2 drafting committee which prepared a draft proposal of the recommendations related to the project implementation.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 9 of 18

2.2. RAC2 recommendations related to project implementation The drafting committee of the RAC2 recommendations reviewed the RAC1 recommendations as well as the comments raised by the RAC2 members regarding the Regional Facilitator’s overall assessment of the project developments. The RAC2 reviewed and endorsed the following recommendations related to project implementation. The RAC1 recommendations are listed in parallel to the corresponding sections of the RAC2 recommendations for easy reference.

RAC1 recommendations

RAC2 recommendations

At the UNDP level Strengthen UNDP support to national project partners

! Ensure the preparation of the project work plan and expenditure plans ! Follow up the monitoring and the delivery of planned activities and expenditures ! Ensure linkages with other UNDP supported and related initiatives in the country ! Mainstreaming of projects at the policy level

At the level of national project teams - All project components should produce yearly work plans that reflect timely actions and that are linked to an expenditure plan, and that indicate the responsibilities of concerned parties within the project - Improve the availability of project staff and resources to improve the delivery of the project outputs, ensuring high quality outputs - Seek more extensive international expertise at the national level to support national experts in responding to all project challenges. International expertise should be identified in line with national specificities and a continuous exchange should be maintained between these experts and the project.

! All necessary project staff need to be recruited in order to fully respond to the project needs: ! All necessary project resources should be allocated for the activities [human and material resources] ! Ensure access to necessary specialized technical expertise ! The project managers should elaborate timely the work plans, expenditure plans and other reporting requirements

At the level of RFU - The responsibilities and functions of the RFU described in the Manuel of Procedures should be respected in order for the RFU to best to focus on its mandate - Concentrate on the technical role of the RFU to become more active in providing guidance, advice and technical know-how on issues related to wetlands and coastal zones

RAC1 recommendations

MWC Project- RAC2 report

! Implement the recommendations of institutional and management review of the RFU to clarify the role and responsibilities of RFU ! Ensure that the institutional and management review is integrated within the midterm evaluation ! Provide tailor made methodological support in response to national needs and capacities ! Provide more strategic technical support

RAC2 recommendations

Page 10 of 18

At the level of overall project operations - The project should adopt a common strategy for monitoring and reporting, that would be the basis for the yearly evaluations and the PIRs. For this purpose, all project components should develop their customized logframe and a set of measurable indicators - Conclude rapidly the site diagnosis activities and initiate the establishment of the management plans of the sites and launch concrete actions on the ground to address the main threats at sites level

! the flow of operation between the project manager /UNDP- CO/ RFU to be more operational ! regular progress reports on a quarterly basis : the role of the RFU in consolidating these reports should be reviewed in light of available resources of the RFU ! Deadlines for delivery of project outputs should be set and monitored rigorously -DEC 2002 as a bench mark for the management plans, monitoring and evaluation, publishing of the database

At the level of communication - Projects should be immediately equipped with all required communication infrastructure : computers, modems, internet access, e-mail… - The project website should used as the centrepiece of the communication within the project, the website should be actively developed by all project partners - Awareness activities should be initiated at the national level in parallel with the management planning activities and regional experience should be provided on this issue

! Enhance and strengthen communication between countries ! Communication tools at the local and national levels ! Website regular updating ! Exchange of information and lessons learned ! The RFU should listen to national needs related to communication and respond to these needs ! Prepare a documentary film on the project achievement in collaboration UN units and other potential donors ! All countries should edit and format its information (specially those related to the site diagnosis) in a way they can be published on the website or disseminated through other tools

At the level of networking and partnership - Countries should create real partnerships with local groups and NGOs and providing them with the necessary capacity building support - RFU should actively seek linkages with regional partners, especially related international conventions and regional organizations and propose operational modalities to project partners - South-South and North-South cooperation should be strengthened by the project

MWC Project- RAC2 report

! Activate mechanisms of collaboration with concerned conventions ! Build operational linkages with the MedWet Initiative and its on going and planned activities. The MW initiative should actively promote such linkages ! Identify concrete cooperation with MAP, RAC/SPA, ERS/RAC in the on/going activities ! Ensure exchange of information and lessons learned across countries through bilateral exchanges and visits ! Ensure the exchange of experiences, mechanisms and approaches of success stories and failures through the RFU ! Identify the mechanisms for the continuation of networking and technical assistance beyond the life of the RFU especially with regards to TdV, CdL, and MW, especially with regards to the establishment and operation of the MedWet Regional network ! RFU needs to provide technical assistance and

Page 11 of 18

capacity building for supporting resource mobilization at the national level from external and domestic funding ! Necessary resources for RFU’s responsibility in resource mobilization should be identified ! Ensure this role is secured with necessary financing beyond RFU`s life such as regional initiatives of MW MAP

2.3. Presentation of the sustainability strategy and Mid-Term Review 2.3.1. Presentation of the sustainability strategy The presentation of the sustainability within the MedWetCoast project referred to the fact that only specific project actions and “acquis” should be expected to continue after the project ends in order to achieve its objectives. It recalled that these actions should be identified and the modalities for ensuring their continuation should be guaranteed. The presentation recalled that the priority aspects to its sustainability and its completion are: • Mobilise political will • Partnerships • Community participation • Financing • Communication The discussion of the sustainability strategy reflected the following views: • The strategy should address the sustainability of actions and not of the project, mainly with regards to the local level • The strategy should consider national specificities • The strategy should consider existing regional structures and respond to regional needs • It should be clarified that the existence of the sustainability factors presented doesn’t necessarily lead to the required result, risk factors should be considered

2.3.2. Presentation of the Mid-Term Review GEF/UNDP confirmed that the Mid-Term Review (MTR) is a prerequisite of the Monitoring and Evaluation strategy of the project. It should include an evaluation of how the project has been executed at all levels: reporting, financial delivery and impacts. UNOPS explained that an Institutional Management Review of the RFU has been undertaken in June 2002. The ToRs of the RFU Management Review and of the MTR (attached in Annex 3) were presented. UNOPS clarified that the Review was conducted in light of the resignation of the Regional Facilitator in April 2002, and that the Facilitator will remain in the position until September. Given that the findings of the Review were not available at the time of the RAC2 meeting, it was clarified that the necessary management modalities of the RFU will be taken based on the recommendations of the Institutional and Management Review.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 12 of 18

UNOPS also clarified the RFU management Review is an integral part of the Mid-Term Review of the project. The meeting identified the following main aspects that should be considered during the MTR: WHAT Country specific Suggestion to base the evaluation on the national level before addressing the regional level. If the French component should be evaluated it should be reviewed by UNDP. French have originally requested to accept the UNDP evaluation approach. Lebanon is not included in the regional prodoc since funded on a bilateral basis, therefore needs to be discussed with UNDP for inclusion. The APR rating from four national stakeholders should be considered in the MTR Carry out the MTR considering the respect of national policies Mid-Term Review does not coincide at a mid point for all countries since they have started in different times.

The evaluation should assess the RFU and the regional component but also the national teams should be evaluated The term accountable use of resources should be clarified

Other In order to judge the validity of the original project objectives and strategies we need to review their implementation up to now. With regard to the initiative for evaluating the French component of the project UNOPS will be taking this task

Regional issues and approaches should be addressed in the MTR, although they cannot be a topic per se in such an evaluation. MTR should assess or identify the project situation in terms of sustainability and sustainability actions. The RFU management review should feed in the MTR. UNOPS will provide the results of the RFU Management Review to the countries for information and consultations, how will it happen and how the countries are or will be involved in it. Does UNOPS has the mandate to review only the regional project and the national components are reviewed by UNDP or is it different. The TORs are made for UNOPS or UNDP Add the point on the relations between the Regional Facilitator and the countries and the role of the Regional Facilitator being a decision maker of simply facilitator

WHO Participation of national expertise in the evaluation team is important

Suggestion to use the SURF roster for identifying and selecting evaluation consultants.

CVs of selected consultant will be shared with UNDP offices preliminarily

Suggested to submit the final selection of candidates instead of being part in the selection process Half of the countries would like to be involved in the selection process

HOW A suggestion to issue only one contract for the consultant and he/she will be reimbursed by each CO by charging the project and crediting UNOPS. Was agreed

Countries will pay for the duration of the evaluation team in each respective country.

WHEN In autumn 2002, although early September is a very busy time for all COs.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

For Palestine it is OK to have the mission early September

Page 13 of 18

2.4. RAC2 recommendations related to sustainability and Mid-Term Review 2.4.1. Recommendations related to the sustainability strategy It should be recalled that the RAC1 had recommended the establishment of a sustainability strategy that would indicate how to integrate project activities at national and regional level and how to monitor project sustainability. Based on the draft document on the sustainability within MedWetCoast presented to the RAC2 members and on the discussion related to this matter, the following recommendations were agreed by the RAC2: ! Countries should provide the RFU before the 31 January 2003 with their views on the priority aspects related to sustainability of actions at local and national level, proposing concrete recommendations and identifying the instruments that apply to the national context ! The RFU should support countries in identifying relevant indicators ! The common project logical framework and indicators should used as a basis for monitoring the project sustainability ! The draft document “Sustainability within MedWetCoast” should be finalized in light of the comments of the project partners

2.4.2. Recommendations related to the Mid-Term Review It should be recalled that the RAC1 had recommended to clarify the institutional arrangements among all concerned stakeholder groups and integrate the project within the appropriate institutional structures. Based on the TORs of the MTR and on the discussions pertaining to the proposed TORs, the following recommendations were retained by the RAC2 meeting related to the MTR: 1. The MTR should be based on the review of the national components and achievements at this level, prior to review the performance of the RFU. 2. The APR assessment and rating involving four main stakeholders in the country level should be taken into consideration during and after the MTR 3. Lebanon national component is funded through French GEF, but because the donor has requested to follow similar evaluation procedures as for the regular GEF, Lebanon will be included in the overall MTR exercise and UNOPS will undertake the task. 4. The RFU Management Review Report will be shared with all countries as a useful element feeding into the MTR. 5. The term Accountability of use of resources should be clarified and maybe replaced with efficiency of resource use. 6. The SURF Roster should be consulted at the stage of identifying and selecting candidate consultants for the MTR exercise 7. Participating countries should be involved in the MTR Team selection process by either receiving the shortlist of selected candidates and their respective CVs or the final list of selected candidates for their final review and endorsement/acceptance. 8. Each country will cover the cost of the MTR mission for the duration of the mission in its own country.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 14 of 18

9. It was agreed that UNOPS will issue only one contract for the MTR Team and costs will be reimbursed by each UNDP-CO by charging the project and crediting UNOPS. It should also be noted that the MedWet Initiative Coordinator have forwarded official comments related to the Mid-Term Review and proposed to look more deeply into the following issues: • • • •

The reasons for having different approaches and different level of progress at national level Identifying if the project is building up on existing institutional structures both at national as well as at regional level The sustainability report presented during the RAC should lead to clear proposals on the sustainability of the project , and the project actors should be involved in this process and empowered as key actors in project execution and follow up The MedWet Coordinator recalled that MedWetCoast is a central activity of MedWet and confirmed MedWet’s readiness to assist the project and the MTR

Similarly, the Conservatoire du Littoral (representing the French GEF) noted officially that the French GEF had confirmed since the development phase of the project that common monitoring and evaluation procedures should be put in place for all project activities regardless of their funding sources. The Conservatoire also confirmed that French GEF had endorsed the project as early as 1997 based on the fact that a review of the French GEF funded activities will be conducted during the Mid-Term review of the project through GEF funds.

3.

Main conclusions of RAC2 meeting

The following main conclusions of RAC2 meeting were retained: • • • •

•

•

The Mid-Term Review of the project should take place in autumn 2002 All RAC 2 recommendations should be addressed during the MTR The results of the MTR should be included in the coming work plans for the national project components as well as the regional one. The Palestinian delegation request to continue to benefit from the networking and training activities of the project should be addressed. The necessary funding to maintain the momentum achieved through the project should be identified by the Palestinian team and resource mobilization for the Palestinian component should be explored by UNDP and all other project partners. The Albania delegation called upon GEF/UNDP to accept to resume the MedWetCoast project activities in Albania in order to support the efforts of national Government and non Government organizations in the protection of the project sites. The Albanian Government confirmed its commitment to ensure the safeguard and sustainable use of natural resources in the Narta area. The RAC2 members endorsed the Tunisian delegation proposal to organize the RAC3 in Tunisia in April 2003.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 15 of 18

4. Summary and recommendations of the technical meeting 4.1. Summary of the technical communications √ "Management plan developments concerning MedWetCoast sites" In this communication, the speaker gave a reminder of the main aspects of management plan procedures and the logical framework (see RFU publication No. 01/2002). The speaker defined the management plan in terms of its form and content. He reviewed the responsibilities of the team in charge of the management plan process. The involvement of all stakeholders in validating management plans by participative activities is still a priority in the preparation of management plans. The work plan of the management plan process that was discussed at Zaranik and at Amman was presented; the format of future management plans will comply with the RAMSAR/EUROSITE directives. (Presentation enclosed in Appendix 4) √ "Progress report on management plans for the MedWetCoast sites" The progress report on activities related to the management plan process of MedWetCoast sites that was presented by the national representatives followed the model of the quarterly report on the progress of the management plan process (model developed by the RFU). This report enables the progress of the management plan process to be monitored for each MedWetCoast site and is of use in remedying problems encountered in the conduct of this process, especially by finding solutions to the technical requirements that have been identified. The deadline of 3 months for producing this report also increased efficiency and made it more feasible to comply with the other deadlines defined in the work plan. The presentations of this report generally described the start of the management plan process in each country, rather than a specific report on each of the sites. With the exception of Egypt, Tunisia and Albania, which have designated the teams responsible for the management plans and which have made the first steps in the start of this stage, the remaining countries are still in the process of site diagnosis. The quarterly report defining the progress of management plans for the period from April to June 2002 is given in Appendix 5. √ "Contribution to the methodology of integrated coastal zone management (ICZM): processes and key factors" The speaker described the methodology of Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). This approach, developed by UNESCO, sets up a consistent information system that can provide decision-makers and developers with objective factors for choice as an alternative to situations where conflicts occur in the absence of suitable data and indicators. In addition to presenting the various stages of the process, the main indicators that can provide a regular evaluation of this process and some case studies were described. The presentation is enclosed in Appendix 4. √ "Training programmes and skill enhancement as support for the project's activities"

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 16 of 18

The speaker emphasized the importance of training aspects in the MedWetCoast project and of the analysis of all the national and regional training programmes provided by ATEN between 2001 and 2002. The prospects for 2003 and 2004 were also described. A detailed analysis of the training provided was given in this communication (percentage participation by each country, trainees and international experts involved, strong and weak points, further supporting materials, etc.). (See Appendix 4)

4.2. Recommendations of the technical session √ Recommendations relating to management plans 1. Speed up the production of management plans for all the national components with a view to completing them by December 2002. This date was fixed for April 2003 for Morocco and December 2003 for the Lebanon (in relation to the financial resources to be found). 2. Take into consideration the socio-economic aspects of human populations living near the sites. 3. Produce a consensus during the process of management planning by using participative actions, in order to ensure the sustainability of the project's actions. 4. Management plans must take into consideration the need to mobilize resources. 5. The monitoring and surveillance plans for producing the management implementation stages of management plans (agreed at Zaranik) must be developed. 6. The monitoring and assessment of management plans should include clear and welldefined indicators of the implementation of plans in the form of products (e.g. maps, GIS and inventories,…) and in terms of results (environmental and socio-economic results, awareness, changes in behaviour,…). √ Recommendations approaches

relating

to

integrated

management

and

participative

1. It is essential to validate the socio-environmental evaluations and the management plan objectives with local political groups, so that they can become more official. 2. The role of decision-makers (including business interests) must be taken into account even if it is mainly NGOs and local groups who are involved in the management plan. 3. The harmonisation of the regulations proposed in the management plan by taking into account local uses and national regulations must be strengthened. 4. The management plan must contain incentives (e.g. recognition of rights, economic incentives and symbolic aspects) to promote harmony between the various interests. √ Recommendations relating to training 1. The role of focal national training points must be strengthened to ensure that participants in national and regional training programmes are carefully selected to maximise the final impact of the training. 2. The post-training relations with expert training officers must be strengthened to improve the putting into practice of the methods that have been learnt. 3. Detailed annual training action plans should be produced at national level and implemented in accordance with the national training plans developed in 2001. 4. The human training resources should be strengthened and selected in consultation with national partners.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 17 of 18

5. Synergy with existing national training programmes must be ensured at regional level. 6. Bilateral cooperation should be developed between countries through training activities (exchanges, etc…). 7. The regional seminar on the wetlands strategy zones should be related to the wetlands strategies developed at national level. 8. The participants should comply with the procedures and the date deadlines for training sessions.

MWC Project- RAC2 report

Page 18 of 18

ANNEX 1. Agenda of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians

ANNEX 2. List of participants of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians

ANNEX 3. Proposed TORs for the Mid-term Review

ANNEX 4. Presentations of the technical session

ANNEX 5. Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of the management plans (AprilJune 2002)

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

ANNEX 1. Agenda of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

SECOND REGIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (RAC2) DETAILED PROGRAMME Date

Place

Objectives

th

Tuesday June 25 : Arrival and reception of members of the second Regional Advisory Committee (RAC2) meeting at the Marseille airport and transfer to their hotel in Arles. Wednesday June 26th : Study tour in the Camargue and Montpellier Members of the Regional Advisory Committee (RAC2) will join the study tour for politicians AM

Camargue

Presentation of the Regional Natural Park concept and visit round the Camargue Regional Natural Park ; Meeting with the Park Director.

PM

Montpellier / la Grande Motte

Languedoc Inter-departments Mission (development of main tourist resorts and land-use planning)

Thursday June 27th : Regional Advisory Committee (RAC2) meeting at Tour du Valat Session1

Project development in 2002 – Chaired by Tour du Valat, Rapporteur: Samia Guirguis

9:00-9:30

Opening note by RAC2 presidency( TdV/CdL) and round the table presentation of the RAC2 members

9:30-11:00

Presentation of the national reports: Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco , Palestine Authority and Tunisia (15 minutes presentation by country)

11:00-11:30

Coffee break

11:30-12:15

General discussion of the national reports

12:15-13:00

Presentation of the regional report and workplan (15 minutes presentation by the regional facilitator followed by 30 minutes discussion)

Session2

Overall assessment and sustainability of project – Chaired by Conservatoire du Littoral, Rapporteur: Vladimir Malkaj

14:30-15:00

Presentation of the overall assessment of the project and of the proposed action plan for sustainability of project activities

15:00-16:00

Discussion of the overall assessment of the project and of the proposed sustainability action plan

16:00-16:30

Coffee break

16:30-17:15

Discussion of mid-term evaluation: TORs and planning

17:15-18:00

Approval of work plan and decisions of RAC2 members

RAC2report_Annex 1_detailed programme_eng

page 1 / 2

Friday June 28th : Closed technical meeting for Project Managers, GEF/UNDP, UNOPS and RFU Session1

MedWetCoast framework for the management plans Chair: Spyros Kouvelis, Rapporteur: Habib Ben moussa

9:00 - 9:30

Overview of the programme of the day and round the table presentation of the participants (Lamia Mansour)

9:30 - 10:00

Presentation of the framework followed by MedWetCoast for developing management plans at sites level (Jean Marc Sinnassamy)

10:00 - 10:30

Presentation of the developments of the ‘’Management plans’’ phase in each country : Albania, Egypt, Lebanon (10 minutes presentation by country)

10:30 - 11:00

Coffee break

11:00 - 11:30

Presentation of the developments of the ‘’Management plans’’ phase in each country : Morocco , Palestine Authority, Tunisia (10 minutes presentation by country)

11:30 – 12:15

Discussion and recommandations on the development and implementation of the management plans within MedWetCoast

Session2

Technical issues related to the project Chair: Tatjana Hema, Rapporteur: Sami Qadan

14:00 -14:45

Contributions of the methodology for the integrated coastal area management (Martine Antona) Towards vers

14:45 - 15-30

Discussion of participatory approaches related to MedWetCoast

15:30 - 16:00

Coffee break

16:00 - 17:00

Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities (Emmanuel Thévenin)

17:00 –1 8:00

Recommendations and decisions regarding technical aspects of the project

Saturday June 29th: Closed technical meeting for Project Coordinators / Project Managers, UNDP and RFU AM

Field visit to the Vigueirat Estate

Sunday June 30th, return to the Marseille airport for the people taking part in the RAC2 meeting

RAC2report_Annex 1_detailed programme_eng

page 2 / 2

PROGRAMME

STUDY TOUR 23-27 June 2002, FRANCE Sunday 23rd June 2002 Arrival of participants in Paris Accommodation: Novotel Paris Tour Eiffel 61 quai de Grenelle – 75015 Paris Tel. 33 (0)1 40 58 20 00 Fax. 33 (0)1 40 58 24 44 20:00

Welcome and dinner at the Brasserie Pont Mirabeau (inside the hotel)

Monday 24th June 2002 09:00

Meeting point: lobby of the hotel (with your luggage)

09:30

Departure – bus

10:00–12:00

Ministère de l’Ecologie et du Développement Durable (5th floor – room 5234)

Please take your passport with you for control security checking at the entrance of the Ministry

• Jean-Marc MICHEL, Deputy Director of the “Direction de la Nature et des Paysages” Presentation of the French policies regarding the Conservation of natural areas, especially wetlands and coastal areas • Marie-Odile GUTH, Co-ordinator of the National action plan for wetlands Presentation of the French action plan for wetlands • Marc GIACOMINI, Head of the International Affairs Departement International activities of the Ministry in the Mediterranean region

Debate (questions) 12:15

Departure – bus to the Hôtel Scribe, 1 rue Scribe, 75009 Paris

13:00

Lunch at the Restaurant “Le Jardin des Muses”

MedWetCoast Study Tour, 23-27 June 2002, FRANCE - 1 / 4

14:15

Visit of a photo exhibition at the Conservatoire de l’Espace Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres.

14:30-16:00

Conservatoire de l’Espace Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres Salon “Lumière”. • François LETOURNEUX, Director of the Conservatoire du Littoral • Catherine GARRETA, Deputy Director of the Conservatoire duLittoral Presentation of the Conservatoire de l’Espace Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres: a tool for coastal protection

16:00 17:20

Departure – bus to Gare de Lyon railway station Departure - TGV 6123 (coach No 1) to Marseille

20:30

Arrival in Marseille (by bus to the hotel) Accommodation : Hôtel Mercure Euro-Centre Tel. 33 (0)4 91 17 22 22 – Fax. 33 (0)4 91 17 22 23

21:30

Dinner at the Restaurant “l’Oliveraie” (inside the hotel)

Tuesday 25th June 2002 7:30

Departure – bus to Hyères-les-Palmiers (Var)

9:15

“Monument de l’Aéronavale” • Christian DESPLATS, Regional Representative of the CELRL for the Region Provence- Alpes - Côte d’Azur Presentation of the management plan of a site of the Conservatoire du Littoral: example of the Hyères salinas

10:15

Boat from La Tour Fondue (Presqu’île de Giens) to the Island of Porquerolles

11:15-12:30

Welcome and presentation of the Parc National de Port-Cros • Emmanuel LOPEZ, Director of the Parc National de Port-Cros • Daniel BARBARROUX, the Deputy Mayor d’Hyères-les Palmiers The role of a Local Authority in the environmental protection

12:30–14:15

Lunch on the island

14:30

Departure – boat to Presqu’île de Giens

15:00

Departure – bus to Marseille MedWetCoast Study Tour, 23-27 June 2002, FRANCE - 2 / 4

16:30

Arrival at the Hotel Mercure in Marseille

17:15

Walk to the Regional Council

17:30–19:00

Welcome and reception at the Regional Council Hall of the Region Provence–Alpes-Côte d’Azur • Michel VAUZELLE, President of the Regional Authority. Region Provence- Alpes- Côte d’Azur • Jean Louis DIEUX, Vice-President of the Regional Authority in charge of the International Affairs.

20:00

Accommodation at the Hotel: Mercure Euro-Centre Free time for dinner

Wednesday 26th June 2002 8:00 9:30

Departure – bus (with your luggage) Arrival in Arles. The participants of the Second Regional Advisory of the MedWetCoast Project (RAC2) will join us.

10:00-11:30

Welcome presentation and visit of the Regional Park of Camargue • Didier OLIVRY, Director of the Regional Park of Camargue Visit of the Camargue Museum

11:45

Departure – bus to La Grande Motte, tourist resort on the Mediterranean sea. Sightseeing tour by bus

12:45

Lunch at the “Yatch Club”

14:30-16:00

Auditorium of the Congress Hall of La Grande Motte • Jacques GUIU, President of the Mission Littoral • Claude ALLET, Director of the Mission Littoral Presentation of the objectives of the Interministerial mission for coastal land-use planning of the Languedoc-Roussillon

17:45

Departure – bus to Arles Accommodation: Hôtel Nord Pinus Tel. 33 (0)4 90 93 44 44 – Fax. 33 (0)4 90 93 34 00

19:00

Reception at the Town Hall of Arles Welcome address by Mr Hervé SCHIAVETTI, Mayor and General Councillor

20:30

Dinner at the Hotel Jules César MedWetCoast Study Tour, 23-27 June 2002, FRANCE - 3 / 4

Thursday 27th June 2002 8:30

Departure – bus (with your luggage) to Le Sambuc

09:00

2ème Second Regional Advisory Committee of the MedWetCoast Project (RAC2) Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat. Welcome address by: • •

Luc HOFFMANN, President of Foundation Tour du Valat and Foundation Sansouire François LETOURNEUX , Director of the Conservatoire de l’Espace Littoral et des Rivages Lacustres

10:00-12:30

Presentation of the National and Regional MedWetCoast reports

13:00

Lunch at the Tour du Valat

14:30

Departure – bus to Nîmes railway station

16:00 16:37

Railway station, Nîmes Departure - TGV to Paris

20:05

Arrival in Paris Gare de Lyon Accommodation: Hôtel Novotel Gare de Lyon Tel. 33 (0)1 44 67 60 00 – Fax. 33 (0)1 44 67 60 60 Free time for dinner

MedWetCoast Study Tour, 23-27 June 2002, FRANCE - 4 / 4

ANNEX 2. List of participants of the RAC2 meeting and of the Study Tour for politicians

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

List of members of the second Regional Advisory Committee Albania Name

Tatjana Hema

Violeta Zuna

Vladimir Malkaj

Title

Deputy Ministres

Project Manager

Development Advisor

MWC-Albania

UNDP

355 42 57895 355 42 28348 [email protected]

355 4 233 122 335 4 232 075 [email protected]

Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Egypt Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Lebanon Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Morocco Name Title

Ministry of Environment 355 42 57895 355 42 70627 [email protected]

Mostafa Fouda

Esam A. El Badry

Samia Guirguis

Director of Natural Conservation Sector

Project Manager

Assistant Resident Representative

EEAA

MWC-Egypt

UNDP

202 336 90 83 202 761 55 42 [email protected]

202 5 784 840 202 5 784 847 [email protected]

Lina Yamout

Charbel Rizk

Dima Al Khatib

Head of Protection of Urban Environment Service

Project Manager

Gef focal point

Ministry of Environment

MWC-Lebanon

UNDP

96 14 522 222 96 14 525 080 [email protected]

9614 522 222 96 14 525 080 [email protected] [email protected]

961 1 981 301 961 1 981 521 [email protected]

Abdallah Rattal

Youssef Slaoui

Lahsen Amaoun

National Coordinator

Project Manager

Conservation des resources Fôrestières

MWC-Morocco

MCEF

212 37 77 61 57 212 37 77 61 56 [email protected]

212 6 20 38 934 212 37 66 08 26

202 524 87 92 202 524 87 92 [email protected]

Dept Environnement Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

212 37 68 26 34 212 37 77 08 75 [email protected]

Abdelmjid Belmrid

Name Title

Directeur, Coordinateur local

MWC-Morocco MCEF/DREFO

Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

212 56 68 34 50 212 37 68 84 22

Palestinian Authority

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Tunisia Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Saïd Jalala Director General

Sami Qadan Project manager

Gef focal point

MEnA

MWC-Palestine Authority

UNDP/PAPP

972 52 578 554 972 82 847 198 [email protected] [email protected]

972 2 626 82 50 972 2 626 82 22 [email protected]

972 52 578 554 972 82 847 198 [email protected]

Juerg Staudenmann

Abderhamen Gannoun

Habib Ben Moussa

Nadia Bechraoui

Directeur Général

National Coordinator

Gef focal point

APAL

MWC-Tunisia

PNUD

216 71 840 177 216 71 848 660 [email protected]

216 71 840 177 216 71 848 660 [email protected]

216 71 564 558 216 71 560 094 [email protected]

RAC2 List of Participants, uptated 18/06/2002

Page 1 / 3

MedWetCoast Regional Facilitation Unit Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Funding Agencies Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

International Conventions Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Lamia Mansour

Bouameur Mahi

Regional Facilitator

Regional Assistant / Communication Officer

MWC-RFU

MWC-RFU

33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 lamia.mansour@ tourduvalat.org

33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

Luc Hoffmann Président

Jean Paul Taris Directeur Général

Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat

Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat

33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 taris@ tourduvalat.org

Jean Jalbert Directeur de la conservation

François Letourneux Directeur

Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat

Conservatoire du Littoral

33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 jalbert@ tourduvalat.org

33 1 44 06 89 15 33 1 45 83 60 45

Pierre Bougeant Chargé de mission

Fabrice Bernard Chargé de coopération

Conservatoire du Littoral

Conservatoire du Littoral

33 1 44 06 89 15 33 1 45 83 60 45 [email protected]

33 1 44 06 89 15 33 1 45 83 60 45 [email protected]

Abdelkrim Si Bachir Consultant Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

Sylvia Schollbrook Portoflio manager

Hani Daraghma Regional Coordinator

UNOPS

GEF/UNDP/RBAS

Phone : 1 212 4571864 Fax : 1 212 4574044 [email protected]

202 5 784 840 202 5 784 847 [email protected]

Ghislain Rieb Chargé de mission

Christophe Du Castel Chargé de Mission

MATE/SAI-FFEM

Secrétariat du FFEM - AFD

33 1 42 19 17 05 33 1 42 19 17 72 [email protected]

Phone : 33 1 53 44 33 10 Fax : 33 1 53 44 32 48 [email protected]

Atef Ouerghi Biological Marine Expert

Spyros Kouvelis MedWet Coordinator

UNEP CAR/ASP

MedWet / RAMSAR Convention

216 1 795 760 216 1 797 349 [email protected]

30 10 808 92 70 30 10 808 92 74 [email protected]

RAC2 List of Participants, uptated 18/06/2002

Page 2 / 3

Regional Members Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Emmanuel Lopez Président du Conseil Administratif

Jean Marie Petit Directeur

ATEN

ATEN

33 4 94 12 82 30 33 4 67 52 77 93 [email protected]

33 4 67 04 30 00 33 4 67 52 77 93 [email protected]

Emmanuel Thevenin Chargé de mission

Naïk Faucon Chargée de formation

ATEN

ATEN

33 4 67 04 30 22 33 4 67 52 88 95 [email protected]

33 4 67 04 36 87 33 4 67 52 88 95 [email protected]

Jamie Skinner Director IUCN Centre for Mediterranean Coop. 34 952 028 430 34 952 619 366 [email protected]

RAC2 List of Participants, uptated 18/06/2002

Page 3 / 3

LISTE DES PARTICIPANTS LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

STUDY TOUR 23-27 Juin 2002, FRANCE PAYS COUNTRY

NOM NAME

FONCTION FUNCTION

EMPLOYEUR EMPLOYER

ALBANIA Mr

Shpetim

Prefect

Prefecture of Vlora

Leka

DGIKA SHPRESA

Mrs

Director

Ministry of Territory Adjustment and Tourism

Mr

Fatmir

XHINDI

Deputy, Head of Green Group

Albanian Parliament

Mr

Esam Ahmed

ELBADRY

MedWetCoast Project Manager

Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency

Mrs

Samia

GUIRGUIS

Assistant Resident Representative GEF Focal point

UNDP

Nazih

ROUHANA

Mayor of the Municipality of Ministry of Interior and Ammiq Municipalities

Mr

Mohamed

ALLOUCH

Gouverneur de la Province Ministère de l’Intérieur de Berkane

Mr

Mohamed

ANECHOUM

Secrétaire Général

Mr

Mohamed

ANKOUZ

Directeur du Département Ministère Chargé des Eaux et des Ressources Naturelles Forêts

Mr

Taha

BALAFREJ

Directeur du Partenariat de Ministère de l'Aménagement du la Communication et de la Territoire, de l'Urbanisme et de Coopération l'Environnement

Mr

Jamal Eddine

BLAGHMI

Gouverneur de la Province Ministère de l’Intérieur de Nador

EGYPT

LEBANON Mr

MAROC

PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY Mr Hosameldeen AL KHOZONDAR Mr

Ministère Chargé des Eaux et Forêts

Director General Ministry of Local Government Head of Central Committee for Organisation and Building Director General Palestinian Agency for Environmental Affairs

Saïd

JALALA

Mr

Yahya

ABIDI

Secrétaire Général de la Municipalité de MAAMOURA

Ministère de l’Intérieur

Mr

Abderhaman

GANNOUN

Directeur Général

Agence de Protection et d'Aménagement du Littoral

Mr

Néji

HALLOUL

Directeur

Agence Nationale de la Protection de l’Environnement

TUNISIE

List of participants to the Closed technical meeting for Project Managers, GEF/UNDP, UNOPS and RFU th Friday June 28 (Tour du Valat, France) Albania Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Tatjana Hema Deputy Ministres Ministry of Environment 355 42 57895 355 42 70627 medwet3alb@albaniaonline. net

Violeta Zuna Project Manager MWC-Albania 355 42 57895 355 42 28348 medwet3alb@albaniaonline. net

Vladimir Malkaj Development Advisor UNDP 355 4 233 122 335 4 232 075 [email protected]

Mostafa Fouda Director of Natural Conservation Sector EEAA 202 524 87 92 202 524 87 92 [email protected]

Esam A. El Badry Project Manager MWC-Egypt 202 336 90 83 202 761 55 42 [email protected]

Samia Guirguis Gef focal point UNDP 202 5 784 840 202 5 784 847 [email protected] g

Rizk Charbel Project Manager

Dima Al Khatib Gef focal point

Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Lina Yamout Head of Protection of Urban Environment Service Ministry of Environment 96 14 522 222 96 14 525 080 [email protected]

MWC-Lebanon 9614 522 222 96 14 525 080 [email protected] [email protected]

UNDP 961 1 981 301 961 1 981 521 [email protected]

Morocco Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Abdallah Rattal National Coordinator Dept Environnement 212 37 68 26 34 212 37 77 08 75 [email protected]

Youssef Slaoui Project Manager MWC-Morocco 212 37 77 61 57 212 37 77 61 58 [email protected]

Khadija Belfakir Gef focal point UNDP 212 37 703 555 212 37 701 566 [email protected]

Egypt Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Lebanon Name Title

Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Palestinian Authority Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Tunisia Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Abdallah El Mastour National Coordinator Counterpart MCEF 212 6 20 38 934 212 37 66 08 26

Abdelmjid Belmrid Directeur, Coordinateur local MWC-Moroco MCEF/DREFO 212 56 68 34 50 212 37 68 84 22

Sami Qadan Project manager MWC-Palestine Authority 972 52 578 554 972 82 847 198 [email protected] [email protected]

Juerg Staudenmann Gef focal point UNDP/PAPP 972 2 626 82 50 972 2 626 82 22 [email protected] g

Habib Ben Moussa National Coordinator MWC-Tunisia 216 71 840 177 216 71 848 660 [email protected]

Nadia Bechraoui Gef focal point PNUD 216 71 564 011 216 71 560 094 [email protected]

MedWetCoast Regional Facilitation Unit Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Experts Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email: Funding Agencies Name Title Organisation Phone nb: Fax nb: Email:

Lamia Mansour Regional Facilitator MWC-RFU 33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 lamia.mansour@ tourduvalat.org

Bouameur Mahi Regional Assistant / Communication Officer (MWC-RFU) 33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

Jean Jalbert Directeur de la conservation Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 jalbert@ tourduvalat.org Fabrice Bernard Chargé de coopération Conservatoire du Littoral 33 1 44 06 89 15 33 1 45 83 60 45 [email protected] Emmanuel Thevenin Chargé de mission ATEN 33 4 67 04 30 22 33 4 67 52 88 95 [email protected]

Pierre Bougeant Chargé de mission Conservatoire du Littoral 33 1 44 06 89 15 33 1 45 83 60 45 [email protected] Abdelkrim Si Bachir Consultant technique Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 29 66 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected] Naïk Faucon Chargé de formation ATEN 33 4 67 04 36 87 33 4 67 52 88 95 [email protected]

Nick Riddiford Expert

Erik Mahé Expert

(00) 44 15 95 760 250

04 99 62 03 96

[email protected] Martine Antona Expert CIRAD-Tera, Montpellier 04 67 59 37 07 04 67 59 38 27 [email protected] Patrick Grillas Expert Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected] Raphaël Mathevet Expert Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected] Christian Perennou Expert Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

[email protected] Didier Moulis Expert EID - Montpellier 04 67 63 70 50

Sylvia Schollbrook Portoflio manager UNOPS Phone : 1 212 4571864 Fax : 1 212 4574044 [email protected]

Hani Daraghma Regional Coordinator GEF/UNDP/RBAS 202 5 784 840 202 5 784 847 [email protected]

[email protected] Jean Marc Sinnassamy Expert Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected] Alain Sandoz Expert Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat 33 4 90 97 20 13 33 4 90 97 20 19 [email protected]

ANNEX 3. Proposed TORs for the Mid-term Review

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

Terms of Reference Mid-Term Review RAB/97/G31 – MedWetCoast Conservation of Wetland and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region in Albania, Egypt, (Lebanon), Morocco, Tunisia and the Palestine Authority

Draft document May 2002

Publication 112002

Contents

1.

Background and introduction

2.

Project objectives and outputs

3.

Overall Objectives of the Review

4.

Products Expected from the Review

5.

Methodology of the Review 5.1. Phasing of the Review 5.2 Evaluation Team 5.3 Implementation Arrangements

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 2 / 10

1.

Background and introduction

This regional project is funded by the Global Environment Facility and the French GEF for a period of five years (1999-2004) with a contribution of 13.273 Million US dollars (GEF) and around 2 Million US dollars (French GEF). The project is implemented through UNDP offices and executed through NEX arrangements in Albania, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Lebanon and by direct execution in the case of the Palestinian Authority. The regional component is executed by the United Nations Office for Project Services and is implemented through a Regional Facilitation Unit located in Tour du Valat Research Centre in Arles, France. The RFU consists of a Regional Facilitator and a Program Assistant under the management and overall technical backstopping of Tour du Valat and Conservatoire du Littoral. The regional component is tasked to ensure tight linkages among the six national projects to enhance positive impacts from networking and exchange of experiences and expertise, while providing technical assistance to conservation and management of wetland and coastal biodiversity in 15 globally important sites. In addition, ATEN (Atelier Technique des Espaces Naturels) implements the regional training activities of the project and provides training support to national components. The national counterpart agencies entrusted with the implementation of the six national components are mainly the Ministries of Environment or their affiliated agencies. At the national level, the following key management mechanisms exist (National Steering Committees and local steering committees), while at the regional level, a regional Advisory Committee oversees the implementation of the whole project and the following partners are represented on it: A representative of each of the Ministries or entities in charge of the environment in each country/Authority; The National Project Manager; GEF/UNDP; UNOPS; FFEM/AFD; French Environment Ministry; The Coordinator of the Mediterranean Action Plan or his representative; The Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention or his representative; Tour du Valat; Conservatoire du Littoral. The Regional Advisory Committee may invite the participation, at their own expense, of other partners or qualified authorities: European Union, IUCN, WWF or any other person whose presence might be considered appropriate. The regional Facilitator provides the secretariat of the Regional Advisory Committee. The Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) policy at the project level in UNDP/GEF has four objectives: i) to monitor and evaluate results and impacts; ii) to provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements; iii) to promote accountability for resource use; and iii) to document, provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned. A mix of tools is used to ensure effective project M&E. These might be applied continuously throughout the lifetime of the project – e.g. periodic monitoring of indicators -, or as specific time-bound exercises such as mid-term reviews, audit reports and independent evaluations.

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 3 / 10

In accordance with UNDP/GEF M&E policies and procedures, all projects with long implementation periods (e.g. over 5 or 6 years) are strongly encouraged to conduct mid-term evaluations. In addition to providing an independent indepth review of implementation progress, this type of evaluation is responsive to GEF Council decisions on transparency and better access of information during implementation. Mid-term evaluations are intended to identify potential project design problems, assess progress towards the achievement of objectives, identify and document lessons learned (including lessons that might improve design and implementation of other UNDP/GEF projects), and to make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project. It is expected to serve as a means of validating or filling the gaps in the initial assessment of relevance, effectiveness and efficiency obtained from monitoring. The mid-term evaluation provides the opportunity to assess early signs of project success or failure and prompt necessary adjustments." 2.

Project objectives and outputs

Development objective: The project's overall development objective is to conserve globally endangered species and their habitats, recognizing wildlife conservation as an integral part of sustainable human development, while improving the capacity of governmental and non-governmental agencies to address biodiversity conservation issues. The project logical framework has been reviewed and a common logical framework was agreed upon by all project components in April 2001, the common immediate objectives and outputs of the project are stated as follows: Immediate Objective

Outputs

1. National policies and tools are promoted and capacity is developed to address policy-based root causes of the loss of wetland and coastal biodiversity.

1.1 A national policy framework that addresses the root causes of the policy deficiencies that has led to biodiversity loss. 1.2 Cross-sectoral planning at the national level 1.3 A legal and regulatory framework that provides the basis for durable, efficient protection of wetlands with significant biodiversity

2. Removal of the root causes of biodiversity loss in key demonstration sites, and sites protected.

2.1 Improved information base 2.2 Biophysical and Socio-Economic Monitoring systems for each site

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 4 / 10

2.3 Site management committees 2.4 Site management plans 2.5 Local management units 2.5 GIS Site management units 2.6 On-site protection of biodiversity 2.7 Public Awareness and participation engagement 3. "Closing of the Mediterranean circle" through cost-effective regional networking to allow transfer of lessons learned, exchange of information and co-training.

3.1 Regional networking, sharing of experience and publication 3.2 Training of all concerned project counterparts

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 5 / 10

3.

Overall Objectives of the Review

The objectives of the mid-term evaluation are to: • • • • • •

Evaluate the project design in terms of its stated objectives, strategy, outputs and activities; Assess progress towards the attainment of the objectives and the likelihood of achieving results and intended impact; Identify strengths and weaknesses in implementation; and Provide a basis for decision making on necessary amendments and improvements, and make recommendations regarding specific actions that might be taken to improve the project delivery Promote accountability for resource use Provide feedback on, and disseminate lessons learned and identify opportunities for partnerships for sustainability of results

Specifically the mid-term evaluation should address the following questions: 1. After 2 years of implementation does it appear that the original project design is still valid and that the stated objectives will be achieved? In the light of experience to date should the project strategy be adjusted in any way? 2. Is the project making satisfactory progress towards the intended impact? 3. While indicators are laid out in the log frame table, a more detailed monitoring and evaluation plan has been developed within the project. Are the indicators identified in the log frame table valid or should they be adjusted in light of the internal M and E plan? Do the new indicators proposed reflect the full set of project objectives and do they shift the emphasis of the project in any way? Are these shifts desirable in light of the original objectives? Have baseline measurements been taken and can impact be objectively measured? If not how can these be adjusted to improve measurability? 4. Are the project implementation and execution modalities operating effectively and efficiently? Is there a clear division of roles and responsibilities between all actors? Is there effective communication between all parties? What are the strengths and weaknesses? How can implementation and execution modalities be improved at the national and regional levels? 5. Overall, as the project moves into its second half, what kinds of corrections should be made in order to enhance impact in line with the original stated objectives? 6. Lessons learned: ex. • How could desired impacts/results have been achieved more effectively or efficiently?

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 6 / 10

• • •

What has worked particularly well and could be considered a “best practice”? What should be done differently in a similar project in the future? What should not have been done as it has proved to have little or negative impact on the overall project objective?

It should be noted that the project operates on different levels: site level activity, national capacity development and, region wide (6 countries) delivery. The above questions should be addressed at all appropriate levels.

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 7 / 10

Thus, a framework for the Review of the project impact is as follows: Region Wide

National

Local (Validate for say 2 sites per country)

Impact on (Biodiversity/ wetlands conservation and management) Impact on Capacity (Individual, Institutional and systematic levels) Impact on stakeholders (local and national) Partnerships and participation Sustainability of results/impacts Impact on policy reforms and overall wetland and coastal zones governance Impact on poverty reduction and sustainable livelihood. Project Delivery (implementation) at the national and regional level

4.

Products Expected from the Review

The main product of the Mid-term review is an independent evaluation report structured as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Executive Summary Introduction Sustainable development context Project concept and design Project implementation: implementation arrangements; implementation progress, institutional coordination at the national and regional level, 6. Project results/impacts and sustainability 7. Conclusions-recommendations 8. Annexes including the framework for the evaluation of the project impact.

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 8 / 10

5.

Methodology of the Review

5.1. Phasing of the Review In view of the urgency, the mid-term review will be conducted in two phases: 1. Review of the institutional set up and implementation arrangements of the regional project RAB/97/G31. This evaluation will be an integral part of the overall project evaluation. Approximately one week will be allocated for this review and it will include a visit at the RFU, and will take place before the RAC which is scheduled for the last week of June 2002. The following ToRs/Tasks would be carried out by the consultant: ! ! ! ! !

! !

Review functions and responsibilities of the Regional Facilitation Unit (RFU) – the Unit comprising the Regional Facilitator and the TdV - and the modalities for delivery of project activities Review the management structure within the RFU including planning and coordination and execution of responsibilities for the implementation of the project Assess RFU’s technical capacity and networking capabilities Asses RFU’s access to technical and administrative support including preparation of Terms of Reference, contract issuance, financial management, work planning, budget revisions and budget estimations Evaluate extent of networking and follow-up provided to the various teams associated with the regional project: national project managers, UNDP CO officers, international experts, concerned regional organizations and associations Assess how the RFU has responded to project requirements and needs that were not identified in the project document Assess overall institutional relationships and roles at the regional component level and coordination between stakeholders, including national components, FFEM, CdL, NGOs and networks as well as subcontracted entities;

2. Conduct the Mid-term Review of the overall project in accordance with the ToRs as specified further in section 3. It is anticipated that the Review Team (2 consultants) will visit the six countries participating in the project and where possible will visit project sites in each country. A total duration of 3 weeks is anticipated for the country visits, and the national components will cover the cost of the mission respectively and in accordance with the duration of the review mission in each country. Another week will be reserved for home-based write up of the report. National Project Managers and UNDP Focal Points prepare and provide logistical support needed by the review mission. At the end of the evaluation, the review team will consolidate their review report of the national components into the regional review report, and 2 days are assigned for this task.

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 9 / 10

5.2

Evaluation Team

The evaluation team will be composed (if possible) of 2 consultants (1 international and 1 regional). The consultants should have extensive experience in development and implementation of large international projects. They should also have a good understanding of institutional and political setups in developing countries. The consultants should have good understanding of environmental and sustainable development related issues. It is expected that the consultants have at least 10 years of experience in project management.

5.3

Implementation Arrangements

The overall ToRs as well as the agenda and dates of the mission for review of country and site activities will be reviewed at the Regional Advisory Committee Meeting at the end of June. However, the review of the regional component (Phase 1), including aspects of institutional and management setup, will take place as early as possible before the RAC. The TORs for the Review of the institutional and management set up at the level of the regional component are detailed in Section 5.1 above and constitute part of the overall ToR for the Mid-Term Review. It should be noted that the overall responsibility of the MTR tasks lies between UNDP Country Offices (for the project national components) and UNOPS for the project regional component. The MTR will submit its report on the first phase of the evaluation (Review of institutional and management setup at the level of the regional component) to UNOPS, which will submit the report to the GEF-UNDP regional Coordinator for review. The MTR report on the second phase (review project progress at the national level) would be submitted by the MTR team to the UNDP Country Offices in the participating countries, TdV and CdL (for their comments) prior to submission to GEF-UNDP and French GEF. Joint evaluation of the components supported by the French Government and the ones supported by GEF is encouraged.

Draft TOR mid-term evaluation_may2002_english version

Page 10 / 10

ANNEX 4. Presentations of the technical session

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities Annex 4.2: Developing management plans at sites levels Annex 4.3: Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities Emmanuel Thévenin Atelier Technique des Espaces Naturels

Outlines Role of training within the project Objectives Organisation Results (2001-2002) Regional level Actions, products, strengths and weaknesses National level Actions,products, strengths and weaknessesDiscussion, recommendations and validation

Project documents Capacity building through training is an essential component of the project MedWetCoast Regional programme Shared needs on key subjects Audience from the project coreRegional and international expertise Regional programme 2001 - 2002 • Subjects related to the project implementation – Resources and uses (capitalisation 2002) to highlight the social and economic aspects - participatory approach – From site diagnosis to management planning to indicate the phase of transition between the end of the diagnosis studies and the beginning of the development of the site management plans – Inventories Methodologies to adopt common protocol for geographical data recording – Training of trainers on management planning to set up a common methodology for drawing up a management plan • Audience of regional training courses Zaranik seminar - November 2001Experts (total 16): GB 1 • Jordan 3 •Morocco 1 • Portugal 3 • Spain 1

• Albania 1 • France 6 •

Analysing and increasing the value of experience • Exchanging to structure the MedWetCoast experience • Analysing and updating information to extract practical guidance • Setting up common references • Reinforcing and developing the professional identity

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities

Page 1 of 4

Products (available in French and in English) - Publication MWC 052002 “5 steps for a simplified socio-economic diagnosis” - Restitution of the work completed during the seminar of Zaranik http://www.medwetcoast.com - Training folder “Use of the Medwet inventories methodologies” - CD-ROM“Training of trainers on management plan methodology” 5 steps for a simplified socio- economic diagnosis Mars 2001, Tunis Almada training course- February 2001 Azraq training course - Mars 2002 Medwetcoast Regional Technical Seminar Zaranik - November 2001 (http://medwetcoast.com)

Evaluation (regional training) - From the analysis of assessment questionnaires Management plan (25), Resources and uses(18), Zaranik Seminar (55) - Strengths and weaknesses Regional activities Strengths • Operational in preparation, organisation, monitoring and production • Good co-operation between RFU, ATEN and the experts • Opportunities for participants to get familiar with other sites (partners) • In phase with the ongoing activities and issues Weaknesses •Selection of trainees with the required profile • Non respect of registration deadlines • Limited links with international experts in the implementation of the methodology through on-the-job training National level• Study tour(Tunisia et Morocco) • GIS training course (Tunisia) • Tailor- made training course(Egypt) • Local seminar with National stakeholders to present the project activities • Draft of training plans (Tunisia, Albania, Egypt) - Strengths and weaknesses National activities Strengths •Draft of training plans are existing and training operations are implemented •Relations between ATEN / RFU/ National components are well established Weaknesses •Is National training strategy clearly identified ? •Limited assignment and responsibility of the training focal point ? •Are the role and workload of training focal points under estimated ? •Are there enough human resources allocated to training ?

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities

Page 2 of 4

Discussion / Recommendations • Propose new training modes • Reinforce involvement of international experts at national level • Support the designing of national courses • Participate to IUCN workshop with Mediterranean training organisms • Develop bilateral co-operation among countries

Validations RAC Regional Training course on“Community based management” Seminar on“ National wetland strategy” ATEN’s support for development and implementation of national training courses on management planning National Training operations on management planning Training plans Meeting of the national training focal points (IUCN) 2 to 3 training courses / exchanges

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities

Page 3 of 4

2 001 quarter Subject of the year Setting up the management process

1

2

2 002 3

4

1

2

2 003 3

4

1

2

2 004 3

4

1

2

3

4

Knowing how to manage better Defining a national strategy

Establishing the institutional framework and definning a national strategy Strenthening the basis of integrated development

Towards an integrated management

Spreading the knowledge

Transferring practices RAC

Mar

Training session Resources and uses. Tunis MedWet inventory methodology Lisboa Management plan training for trainers. Amman

Fran

Tun

18-23 février 2-7 mars 2-6 juin

Participation of the population. Turquey ?, Majorca ? Monitoring management operations Study trip by poloticians. Paris et Marseille Regional seminars From site diagnosis tomanagement planning .Zaranik Wetlanfd strategy. Vlora

juin

7-12 Oct 3-7 février

Blic awarenesss. Beyrouth

nov.

Ocoastal areas management tools. Oujda ? Environmental impact studies Developing research applied to conservation

Annex 4.1 Presentation of Training programmes and capacity building in support of project activities

Alb

Page 4 of 4

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels Jean-Marc Sinnassamy, Project Coordinator on Management planning Second Regional Advisory Committee of MedWetCoast Project 27th June 2002 - Arles, France

Definition

(MWC Publication 01/2002)

"A management plan is a written, approved and circulated document that - describes a site, how it functions, its values, its problems, - defines the management objectives and the resources needed for its implementation.

Management plan = a reflection framework prior A management plan is A project approach applied on site The result of a process of analysis and negotiation Analysis of data, problems and issues Negotiation with stakeholders A decision tool Solutions Means A project approach applied on site The result of a process of analysis and negotiation Analysis of data, problems and issues Negotiation with stakeholders A decision tool Solutions Means

The management plan will depend on The site's area, the status, uses The level of information available Mapping is a basic and essential tool The participation and involvement of the stakeholders The site manager Will

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels

Page 5 of 1

A management plan is not Only a nice book A short term consultancy of two months An academic exercise An independent stage of the project

A management plan is A practical answer to solve problems for the conservation of sites In continuity with the diagnosis and before action A set of solutions : technical, legal, institutionnal, incentives The results of a team work The results of involvement of key-stakeholders A work document for the site manager

Site Manager / Local Coordinator responsibilities Maintaining close relations with local stakeholders Providing the public and users with information Maintaining management infrastructures and setting up field monitoring Monitoring environmental trends, helping in the works programme, in scientific research and in participative actions Wardening the site and ensuring that the regulations are complied with, depending on the site's status

Participation Local communities need to be more involved in the project Social and economical aspects have not been fully integrated in the Management Planning process Participatory approach & cross-sector coordination within the project implementation should be strengthened Taking in consideration of the project issues in local plans Lack of efficient legal tools for the protection Full of intervening parties

Process and product Management planning process : Approach Management plan : the product

Management planning process Discussed in Zaranik and Amman (see Schadule) Implementation of the Management Plan team Analysis of Information Involvement of decision-makers and users Awareness

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels

Page 5 of 2

Field work, urgent actions, monitoring Training & networking → Management plan

Management plan format • • • • • •

►

Ramsar & guidelines

Preamble Description Evaluation Objectives Action Plan Review • Policy / framework / summary • Site Diagnosis Consolidated report • Logical Framework 1.Problem analysis 2.Formulation Objectives 3.Formulation Outputs 4.Indicators 5.External factors (assumptions & risks) 6.Formulation of activities 7.Workplan 8.Budgets

•

Decline in Globally endangered species Main problem

•

Habitat degradation / destruction of wetlands & coastal sites

■ Root causes

• • • •

• • • •

• • • •

Recalling Amman discussions Management Plan Format Role of the site diagnosis consolidated report

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels

Page 5 of 3

• • • •

Logical framework Importance of the problem analysis phase Team Work Participation

RFU Technical Assistance on Management Plan Practical elements Ramsar guidelines, Eurosite toolkit, examples Framework paper Methodology, Principles, Responsibilities, Format Training session of trainers International expert Assistanc

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels

Page 5 of 4

juin-02

May-02

Apr-02

mars-02

Feb-02

janv-02

Dec-02

O b je c t iv e s a n d a c t iv it ie s

nov-02

oct-02

Management planning process (Discussed in Zaranik and Amman)

S i te d i a g n o s i s c o -o r d i n a to r , E x p e r ts , S i te m a n a g e r

P r e lim in a r y s ite d ia g n o s is F i n a li z e th e m a ti c s i te d i a g n o s i s s tu d i e s P r o d u c e c o n s o li d a te d s i te d i a g n o s i s r e p o r t I n te g r a te r e c o m m a n d a ti o n s f r o m Z a r a n i k m e e ti n g F i n a l c o n s o li d a te d s i te d i a g n o s i s r e p o r t

S i te m a n a g e r , l o c a l m o d e r a to r

L o c a l S te e r in g C o m m itte e s D i s c u s s a n d v a li d a te s i te d i a g n o s i s f i n d i n g s + u r g e n t a c ti o n s V a li d a te p r o p o s e d m a n a g e m e n t p la n o r i e n ta ti o n s V a li d a te p r o p o s e d m a n a g e m e n t p la n o b je c ti v e s V a li d a te d r a f t m a n a g e m e n t p la n L o c a l w o r k s h o p s , P R A : v a li d a ti o n o f s te p s a t lo c a l le v e l

M a n a g e m e n t p l a n c o -o r d i n a to r , E x p e r ts , S i te m a n a g e r

C o m p le m e n ta r y s u r v e y s ( T o b e d e f i n e d c o u n tr y b y c o u n tr y )

S i te m a n a g e r , M a n a g e m e n t p l a n c o -o r d i n a to r

U r g e n t m a n a g e m e n t a c tio n s ( T o b e d e f i n e d c o u n tr y b y c o u n tr y )

M a n a g e m e n t p l a n c o -o r d i n a to r , S i te m a n a g e r , E x p e r ts

M o n ito r in g p r o g r a m m e s S e le c t o b je c ti v e s o f m o n i to r i n g a n d v a r i a b le s to b e m o n i to r e d E s ta b li s h a n d i m p le m e n t s u r v e i lla n c e p r o g r a m m e s E s ta b li s h a n d i m p le m e n t m o n i to r i n g p r o g r a m m e s

M a n a g e m e n t p l a n c o -o r d i n a to r , S i te m a n a g e r , tr a i n i n g fo c a l p

a s s is ta n c e R e g i o n a l tr a i n i n g o f tr a i n e r s N a ti o n a l tr a i n i n g s e s s i o n s M i s s i o n o f i n te r n a ti o n a l e x p e r ts

D e v e lo p m e n t o f a fin a lis e d m a n a g e m e n t p la n T o R f o r m a n a g e m e n t p la n n i n g e s ta b li s h e d b y R F U I d e n ti f y m a n a g e m e n t o b je c ti v e s a n d o p e r a ti o n s P r o d u c e d r a f t m a n a g e m e n t p la n

Annex 4.2 : Developing management plans at sites levels

Page 5 of 5

S i te m a n a g e r , M a n a g e m e n t p l a n c o -o r d i n a to r , E x p e r ts , l o c a l

Annex 4.3 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors Martine ANTONA, Économiste CIRAD- TERA / Programme Espace et Ressources

Summary 1°. The methodology for ICZM – Unesco- COI Guide 2°. Participation and accommodation of interests in ICZM 3° Instititutionalization process 4° Constant evaluation process The origins of ICZM processes Interactions between : - ecological dynamics : coastal areas, catchment areas…. - Social dynamics : human settlements, Concentrated urbanization and economic activities activities - Short-term irreversible development facilities Management needs and expectations: From the « whistle-blower » , to the target groups and to the coordination structure

Interactions A well-defined environmental problem ( related or not to a specific geographical area) exemple : local/ global The network or the concerned actors defines the appropriate area for intervention Use/ rights / authority Conflicts over a defined area exemple : land use (urbaniz./agricult.) & ecosystem quality Choices requires regulations and trade-offs between actors ( compensation) Spatial competition linked to sectoral development Exemple : tourism/ aquaculture Impacts on limited resources and land availability : Opportunity costs and integration through the industry Multiple regulations and overlapping of competences Exemple: State acts/ customary law over mangroves etc… Complementary scales of intervention

Management needs and expectations To allow sustainable development of coastal zones Prior to management choices ? To preserve environmental integrity

Annex 4.1 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

Page 1 of 5

Role of experts / of science ? which information ? To promote concerted actions with local actors Means? Which participation ? Who participates ? To favour the necessary integration of sectoral policies Which appropriate mangement tools for ICZM ? How to ensure consistency ? To help elaborating decision support tools Which decisions ? At what scale ? Based on which information ? for which decision- makers ?

A methodological approach: The Unesco/ Coi Guide A pluridisciplinary work 13 analyzed cases : Framework / cross analysis The findings on ICZM process 3 successive stages Dynamical and iterative process ( non linear) By steps are presented - tasks and implementation tools - Technical products to be separated from - Outcomes in terms of social dynamics, capacity of the actors; institutions; rules) Inductive and heuristic approach

Phase 1: Preliminary identification Steps 0 : Initialization conditions for ICZM process 1 : Feasability of implementation Case study support Réserve de biosphère du Cameroun; Réserve naturelle de La Réunion (étape 0) Patrimonial Valorization / Nature protection SMVM Étang de Thau; Cote D’Opale ( étape 1) Multiple uses: Féderative appraoch and inter- institutional mechanisms Phase 1 : Key factors Political will of inter-institutionnal integration Lack of vagueness of the « piloting » of the ICZM process ( role of the state, of the funding agencies, of the project ? ) Association of the local populations to the analysis of the needs (problem of social engeneering) Spatial scales of the environmental problems to be identified Integration of social and economical dynamics since the start – up of the process

Phase 2 : Préparation

Annex 4.1 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

Page 2 of 5

Steps 2 : socio-environnemental assessment 3 : Scenarios : Desirable and possible outcomes 4: Elaboration of management plans Case study support PRE-COI: Lagoon of Mauritius and environn. Ass. Comoros (Step 2: multiple activities and developt constraints Saint –Cyprien (step 3): coastal erosion Regional Master Plan of Menabe (étape 4) Phase 2 : Key factors Risk : integration seen as a transfer of competences Process to be inserted in the institutionnal context Risk: Lack of institutionnal relay towards the local actions Even when local actions are effective Private Sector / economical operators to be associated Mediation to be legitimated by the decision-makers and the interested parties in the process Mediation through surveys and ponctual meetings is not mediation Choice on the « core » activity to federate the actions Exemple : Comoros, Menabe Irrealistic time-path of the process (no LT, intermittent) Problem to elaborate well- accepted management plans

Phase 3 : Implementation Steps 5 : Institutionnalization 6 : Implementation of the management scheme 4: Evaluation et adjustment (re-appraisal) ase study support Réserve Mer d’Iroise (Étape 5) SDAGE RMC (étape 6): Master plan for water quality management (French Water Act)

Phase 3 : Key factors Risk : limited to a technical and administrative results exemple : zoning Asymetry of information / users and economic actors not involved in the choice-taking or selection Weak appropriation and then weak actors’ capacity Risk: inappropriate signals sent to actors Lack of or inconsistent incentives ( economic/juridical/ others : concertation)

Annex 4.1 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

Page 3 of 5

role of local taxation Efficiency of the financial mechanism to ensure ICZM implementation Perpetuating/ self-financing

Participation and accomodation of interests Various modes related to the objectives 1. To avoid conflicts of interests 2. To promote collective action (ex: management issues) 3. To create a decision – process mechanism to regulate stakes over the the coastal zone (no problem- solving) Legitimation et capacity to exert rights Identifying rights Auto-organization Rules enforcement Trade-off Towards an iterative approach in elaborating and implementing management plans

Participation modes To avoid conflicts of interests Outcome of the process do not imply cooperation/ conscensus ( cost imposed to others to reach the own objective ) stake : the appropriation of the « accomodation gain » To promote collective action Reaching the outcome needs cooperation : interdependent objectives of actors (ex: earnings, taxes, subsidies, exclusion) ( common/ shared objective; pre-existing or not) Added Value creation with the actors’ agreement To create a decision – process mechanism to regulate stakes Reaching the outcomes implies to built context-situated negotiation procedures over time, ( efficiency : if adapted to uncertainty and if well-suited mechanism : ex contractualisation) Patrimonial value creation

Institutionnalisation Policy Management plan Rules

Constant Evaluation Process: indicators Relevance of stakes (visions) /objectives (scénarios) Agreement over the assessment (cf. participation)

Annex 4.1 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

Page 4 of 5

Changes in the process allowed ( non linear/ loops) Scenarios / Time-path Choices and priority? Integration of the interested parties in institutional arrangements, Who do not participate ? (participation/ institutionnalization) Which best alternative to participate ( BATNA, Exit) Role if non – stakeholders actors (NGO, others) Use and integration of tools Sectoral tools (new, to be created?) Administrative/ juridical/ others Isolated/complementary

Constant Evaluation Process: indicators Knowledge and information From available information to necessary information (IS) Usefulness? Communicate all or not ? Outcomes of ICZM Process Outcomes = decision- making process; awareness; changes of behaviours, participation over time) Products = contracts, chartes, management plan… Objectives Reached ? Adaptation et viability of ICZM process Modes of re-appraising the process

Conclusion ICZM on an area that is meaningfull through the stakes scale: ecosystem/ administrative/ economical ? Stakes are not in the technical devices but in Institutionnalisation Médiation Légitimation collective dimension of actorrs

Annex 4.1 Contribution of the methodology for ICZM : Process and key factors

Page 5 of 5

ANNEX 5. Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of the management plans (AprilJune 2002)

MedWetCoast Project – RAC2 Report / Annexes

Annex 5. Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of the management plans (April-June 2002) Expected results 1. Setting up the team responsibl e for the managem ent plan

Results achieved

Problems faced

Corrective measures

Working groups were formulated, comprising management plan coordinator, site managers, thematic experts and technical Advisors. Meetings are held weekly. Nine meetings were held.

Recruitment of a management plan coordinator.

Coordinator was recruited in May 2002.

Indicators Designation of the local teams, definition of their terms of reference and timetable (Management plan coordinator, site manager, thematic experts, international expert, local moderators)

Egypt

Current management is ensured by the project management unit, the CRDA and the APAL regional structures.

Albania - Local teams are defined - Terms of reference presented at the Guidelines of management plans are translated;

2. Participati ve diagnosis with stakehold ers and interested parties

page 1

Local committees, private and public meetings, workshops, participative diagnosis surveys conducted with users, etc. (Indicate the date, the status of the participants, the agenda, the main conclusions)

The institutional aspects are to be defined by the management plans for each site

Tunisia

Egypt Validation of site diagnosis results and management plan process through local committee meetings: Burullus: 4/6/2002 Zaranik: 11/5/2002 Omayad: local communities meetings with site personnel & community advisor:10/2001, 11/2001, 2/2002.

- MWC RAC 2 Report / Annex 5 : Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of1 the management plans (April-June 2002) –

Suspension of the project activities.

Tunisia - Signature of 3 conventions with local ONG (AAO for Zabmra, ATPNE for Maâmoura,and ATPNE for Korba) - One day Animation of sensitizing and information with highschool pupils of the Korba and Tazerka towns in April 2002

Albania Local committee involves different local institutions and representatives of Communes

3. Improvem ent of the database

Mapping, scientific, technical and administrative documents, etc. (Indicate the type of map or document, the title, the authors, the date, the main conclusions)

Egypt - Water/Hydrological study for Burullus (completed) - Water/Hydrological study for Zaranik (underway) - Catchment’s area study for Omayad (underway) By Dr. I. Shennawy. - Fisheries Management study for Burullus (completed) & Zaranik (underway) By Dr. M. Tawfik - Birds management studies for the three sites (underway) By Dr. M. Tharwat. - Reeds Management Study for Burullus (completed) By Dr. K. Shaltout. - Burullus Zoning study (Completed) By Dr. Shaltout. - Zaranik Zoning study (Completed) By Dr. A. Khedr. - Omayad Zoning study (completed) By Dr. Y. Al Sodany. - Raster maps for all sites (satellite images 2001) - Maps for core zones for all sites.

Tunisia - Aerian photography (1/10000) acquired in March 2002 - Basic artography on a (scale 1/5000) necessary to the realization of the management plans is in progress

page 2

- MWC RAC 2 Report / Annex 5 : Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of2 the management plans (April-June 2002) –

ToR of the management plans studies envisage recruitment by the design office of a Community development specialist and 2 moderators Meetings, workshops and participative diagnosis are not conducted

Albania - Site maps, zonation map and thematic maps are produced by Centre of Geographical Studies. - Site diagnosis reports are produced. Some of the MedWet datasheets and database are under completion for every site.

4. Field activities, developm ent of managem ent and monitorin g actions

page 3

Actions undertaken in the field, management and monitoring activities, surveys, construction works, infrastructure, etc. (Indicate the date, the place, the type of activity, the names of the people or organisations involved, the aims and the main results)

Egypt Burullus - Surveillance activities: water quality, sedimentations & physical properties by the Institute of water analysis, Ministry of Irrigation. - Field verification mission by GIS team, May 2002 - Construction of visitor’s center to be completed in August 2002. - Dredging of Bughaz and canals, recommended by Hydrology expert, undertaken by Local Advisory Committee. - Removal of solid waste disposed on lakeshore, undertaken by local advisory committee. - Coordination with EEAA and Governorate of Kafr El Sheikh to allocate a suitable solid waste area. Zaranik - Surveillance activities: water quality, sedimentations & physical properties by the Institute of water analysis, Ministry of Irrigation. - Survey/ collection of data concerning socio-economic setting and population structure by Community Development Advisor with the help of local communities through participatory approach. - Coordination with different sectors to promote eco-tourism by setting up a “bird land” center on the eastern border of Zaranik, by the project at the site and central level. - Motivating local communities to form organizations for the development of local society.

- MWC RAC 2 Report / Annex 5 : Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of3 the management plans (April-June 2002) –

GIS experts is not recruited yet

- Purchasing engines for the fishermen’s association’s motorboats, a need expressed by the local communities. Omayad - Banning of grazing and quarrying by site personnel. - Rehabilitation of roman wells by site personnel with the help of the local communities. - Conducting clean up events, organized by Community Development Advisor and site personnel, with the help of the local communities. - Coordination with EEAA to allocate an environmentally suitable area for solid waste disposal, at site and central level of the 1project. - Conducting literacy and awareness raising classes targeted for women, a need expressed by the local communities. - Motivating local communities to form organizations for the development of local society Tunisia - Set up of a monitoring plan for the Wadi Abid estuary in partnership with the Agronomic National Institute of Tunis (Islam Ben Ayad) - Survey of the evolution of the Korba sandy sector with the contribution of the Science Faculty of Tunis (Mouna JEBALLAH) - A monitoring programme for the wetlands was setting up and an ingeneer was recruited for the implementation of this program (Miss Samia Boufarès)

Albania - Rehabilitation of channel in Narta lagoon, cleaning of forest and reforestation of 10 ha in Pish-Poro and 2 ha in Orikumi were realized. - Local companies implemented the actions. - Public awareness activities involving local community have been carried out; - Hydrological monitoring is taking place

page 4

- MWC RAC 2 Report / Annex 5 : Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of4 the management plans (April-June 2002) –

Need to increase the capacity of local community

5. Training Participation of local people in and the project, in training, meetings network and missions of national and developm international experts, etc. ent (Indicate the date, the place, the actions name of participants, aims and main conclusions)

Egypt - Three representatives of the local communities in the three sites participated in the first regional technical seminar conducted in Zaranik, November 2002. - 40 local participants to a public awareness programme on wetland’s importance, October 2000. - ATEN mission, may 2002, to help in the organization of the national management plan training programme. - Mission by a management plan international expert to conduct field visits to the three sites, review and assess progress achieved by the national management plan work group, prop2ose and assist in process. June 2002.

Tunisia Participation in the Jordan and Portugal training by 7 trainers

6. Other actions

Other activities not mentioned above (Indicate the date, the place, the people or organisation 3involved, the type of activity, the aims and the main results)

page 5

Egypt Based on the international expert’s mission, evaluation of site, conservation objectives and priority actions were identified.

- MWC RAC 2 Report / Annex 5 : Consolidated quarterly report on the progress of5 the management plans (April-June 2002) –

These formations were very beneficial, except that the setting of the the MedWet data base can only applied for wetlands