Regional Coordination Unit
MANAGEMENT PLAN PEER REVIEW Peer Review of the MWC site management planning process
Final REPORT
5 December 2005
Foreword The report was produced through a combined effort of Ms. Sylvie Goyet of the MWC Regional Coordination Unit and of the two consultants recruited for the Management Plan Peer Review initiative, namely Mr. Sami Ben Haj, Tunisia, and Dr Gérard Collin, France. It relies on the information gathered by the consultants, the exchange and the discussions at the regional MPPR workshop in Rabat in June 2005, the RCU experience with the process, and feedback received at various occasions, including MWC RAC5 meeting in Cairo in September 2005, and presentation at MedCoast Conference in Kusadasi in October 2005. The report is by no means a guideline document; it is neither an exact picture of the national undertaking in each of the 15 or so protected area sites nor a series of recommendations for protected area managers to follow. Rather it is an account of the MedWetCoast process of site management planning and an illustration of some of the issues that came up and how these were addressed. When appropriate, some suggestions for dealing with the issues have been inserted and recommendations proposed. The writers would like to thank the national project managers, Ms. Violeta Zuna (Albania), Dr. Esam El Badry (Egypt), Mr. Charbel Rizk (Lebanon), Mr. Habib Ben Moussa (Tunisia), Mr. Sami Qadan (Palestinian Authority) and Mr. Youssef Slaoui (Morocco) as well as their experts and staff for their support to the initiative and the time and assistance that they freely extended to the consultants when discussing the issues, completing the questionnaire or responding to the various queries and questions. This report is part of the effort to document experience and draw lessons from the implementation of the MedWetCoast project.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 2 of 107
TABLE OF CONTENT 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 5 1.1 Overview of the MedWetCoast project.................................................................... 5 1.2 The MWC management planning process ............................................................... 6 1.3. MWC Management Plan Peer Review exercise ..................................................... 6 1.4 A Short view of the sites .......................................................................................... 8 2. THE GUIDELINES ADOPTED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR MWC PROJECT SITES.................................................................................. 9 3. THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS IN PRACTICE ................................. 11 3.1. Introduction: the context of management planning............................................... 11 3.2 Implementation of the MWC management planning process................................ 13 3.2.1. The process................................................................................................... 13 3.2.2. Training activities......................................................................................... 13 3.2.3. The technical assistance ............................................................................... 15 3.2.4. The drafting teams........................................................................................ 16 3.2.5 A participatory approach? ............................................................................. 17 4. LESSON LEARNED FROM THE MWC PROJECT.................................................... 19 4.1. FEEDING DIAGNOSIS INTO MANAGEMENT PLANS ................................. 19 4.1.1. Gaps in the subjects analysed....................................................................... 19 4.1.2. Socio-economic analysis .............................................................................. 19 4.1.2. Exhaustive studies but segmented analysis.................................................. 21 4.1.3 Conclusion..................................................................................................... 22 4.2. CAUSAL CHAIN ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 22 4.2.1. What the guidelines say................................................................................ 23 4.2.2. MWC process............................................................................................... 23 4.2.3. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 24 4.3. LOOKING BEYOND THE FENCES OR THE IMPORTANCE OF ECOSYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................................... 24 4.3.1. Integration of the ecosystems within the sites.............................................. 25 4.3.2. Integration of the ecosystems outside the sites ............................................ 25 4.3.3. The sensitivity and reactivity to general changes......................................... 26 4.3.4. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 27 4.4. ASSESSING THE VALUES OF THE SITES ..................................................... 28 4.4.1. The natural values ........................................................................................ 29 4.4.2. The socio-cultural values ............................................................................. 30 4.4.3. The landscapes ............................................................................................. 31 4.4.4. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 32 4.5. LIMITS AND ZONING........................................................................................ 32 4.5.1. MWC sites and zoning ................................................................................. 34 4.5.2. The buffer zone in question.......................................................................... 36 4.5.3. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 37 4.6. ECOTOURISM..................................................................................................... 37 4.6.1. Particularities of the Mediterranean sites ..................................................... 38
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 3 of 107
4.6.2. Ecotourism in the MWC management plans................................................ 38 4.6.3. From planning to implementation ................................................................ 40 4.6.4. Conclusions: Specific recommendations ..................................................... 40 4.7. FINANCING THE MANAGEMENT PLANS..................................................... 41 4.7.1. Lessons from the MWC management plans ................................................ 41 4.7.2. Financing: a specific approach for protected areas? .................................... 43 4.7.3. From public to internal resources................................................................. 44 4.7.4. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 46 4.8. COMMUNICATION FOR PROTECTED AREAS ............................................. 47 4.8.1. MWC experience.......................................................................................... 47 4.8.3. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 49 4.9. MONITORING: A FOCAL ISSUE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLANS ........... 49 4.9.1. Monitoring the management plan implementation process ......................... 50 4.9.2. Monitoring of impacts.................................................................................. 51 4.9.3. Conclusion.................................................................................................... 52 5. FROM VISION TO REALITY OR IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONCEPTS ............................................................................................................................ 53 5.1. DIFFICULTIES THAT CAN BE MET WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN........................................................................................... 54 5.1.1. The necessity of ubiquity in the time dimension.......................................... 54 5.1.2. The challenge of evolution with respect to the original philosophy ............ 54 5.1.3. The definition of the limits of acceptable changes....................................... 55 5.1.4. The implacable realities of implementing actions........................................ 55 5.2. SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR HELPING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN........................................................................................... 55 5.3. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION...................................... 56 6. PREPARING THE NEXT MANAGEMENT PLANS ................................................... 58 6.1. EVALUATION OF THE FIRST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO HELP THE PREPARATION OF A SECOND ONE ................................................................... 59 6.2. THE RISKS TO CONTROL................................................................................. 60 6.3. SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF THE M.P............. 60 7. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 62 ANNEXES............................................................................................................................... 64
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 4 of 107
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Overview of the MedWetCoast project The MedWetCoast (MWC) project aims at conserving the biodiversity of global and regional importance in 6 countries/authority in the Mediterranean basin: Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority and Tunisia. Technically supported by the Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, the Conservatoire du Littoral and the Atelier Technique des Espaces Naturels, it is financed by the national contributions of these countries as well as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the French Global Environment Facility (FGEF). Launched in 1999, the project consists of three components. At the national level, in each of the six countries/territory, it calls for developing innovative legal frameworks and policy tools, reinforcing the institutions involved in the management of natural resources and promoting coordinated policies (objective 1). At the local level, it aims at implementing sustainable and intersectoral management in 15 pilot sites (mainly wetlands, forests and coastal areas) of high biological diversity and removing the root causes of the degradation or threat (objective 2). Finally, at the regional level, it strives for strengthening capacities through training and technical assistance and developing and sharing experience by networking (objective 3). A regional coordination unit based at the Station Biologique de la Tour du Valat, France, provides the regional consolidation, leadership and technical assistance to the project. The 15 pilot sites were identified during the inception phase of the project. These are: -
Karaburuni-Llogara (Albania) Vjose-Narta (Albania) Burullus (Egypt) Omayed (Egypt) Zaranik (Egypt) Aammiq (Lebanon) Tyre (Lebanon) Wadi Gaza (Palestine) Beni Snassen (Morocco) Moulouya (Morocco) Nador lagoon and Gourougou (Morocco) Cap des 3 Fourches (Morocco) Lagoons conglomeration in Kelibia incl. Korba Lagoon (Tunisia) Djebel El Haouaria, Zembra/Zembretta (Tunisia) Oued Abid/Dar Chichou (Tunisia)
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 5 of 107
1.2 The MWC management planning process Within the framework of the second objective of the project, namely removing the root causes of the degradation at project sites, a series of complementary and supporting actions were carried out, as spelled out in Fig.1: a) a comprehensive diagnosis of resources, values and usages of the sites, b) urgent measures to protect sensitive areas or species and curb most threatening degradation elements, c) preparation of a management plan for the protected area, and d) initial implementation of the management plan. Together these actions are referred to as the "site management planning process", as they all serve to reinforce each other and, ultimately, lead to an enhanced management of the protected area. Generally, the various phases described above were undertaken in the same linear fashion, i.e. diagnosis first, followed by urgent actions and initial management plan preparation, then finalization of the management plan and implementation of the priority actions of the management plans. In parallel, the process involved training and technical assistance.
Site Management Planning process Diagnosis -instit/legal setting - socio-economic & s/h analysis - flora & fauna - human activities & uses
Management Plan Urgent Protection Measures (+socio-economic/ community devt Activities)
ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF POTENTIALS POTENTIALS AND CONS CONSTRAINTS TRAINTS AND PROPOSALS FOR MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Approval + legal/ Institutional legitimacy
Demonstration of site actions; Participatory process Ownership Initial implementation of the Management Plan
Fig. 1: MedWetCoast site management planning process Mainly because impacts and results can best be demonstrated and evidenced on sites, the project has naturally focused most of its efforts onto the site management planning process, which has then become the central component of the project.
1.3. MWC Management Plan Peer Review exercise At the time of writing, the project had entered its final stage and moving to termination. All components of the project would complete activities by the end of 2006 at the latest. The Palestine national component already completed activities in mid 2003; the regional and Lebanon components would, respectively, complete at the end of 2005 and February 2006;
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 6 of 107
and the other four national components would likely run until the end of 2006, as a significant amount of the budget remains available within those national components. The project team thus now entered a time of consolidation, review and appraisal: What has been successful? What went wrong? What was done for that issue? What were the difficulties? What lessons? In UNDP words, this can be referred to as ‘knowledge management’, a process that runs throughout the life of the project, in terms of documenting and sharing case studies and activities, but also one that implies some structured reflection at the end in order to record processes, institutional arrangements and experience with a view to transfer the lessons learned to the partner institutions and informing the development and implementation of other and future projects. Within that process, the Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) launched a Management Plan Peer Review (MPPR) exercise in the first half of 2005. The exercise aimed at: a) documenting the process that has been followed and engaged in the MWC countries in the preparation, drafting and follow up of the site management plans; b) consolidating lessons learned and critical examples on that subject; c) providing suggestions and recommendations for developing and/or finalizing the management plans for those few MWC sites that have not had a final and approved document yet and for informing the review process in the other cases; and d) informing the future preparation of guidelines, of amendments and revisions to terms of reference. As such, the report of the activity will be widely distributed (IUCN, Ramsar, WWF, GEF, UNDP, etc). The initiative consisted in: a) a desk review, whereby the two consultants recruited examined all of the 11 site management plans that had been finalized or prepared by then (April-May 2005); b) a tailored questionnaire sent to the national teams requesting further information or clarification (May 2005); c) a regional workshop, that gathered practitioners from each of the MWC countries as well as invited protected area management experts from other projects in the region (end of June 2005); and d) a synthesis in the form of a final report, i.e. the present document. It should be noted that, for a large majority of the national MWC teams, the MWC management planning process was the first national experience of that type. Consequently, it was interesting to measure what have been the difficulties and their reasons, what have been the successes, what are the differences of approaches and results between the sites, and finally what lessons could be learnt from the project for the on-going process as well as for other experiences that could occur within the next years elsewhere. This report is a synthesis, at this moment, from the confrontation of all these data and information. The Terms of Reference of the MPPR are attached as Annex 1.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 7 of 107
1.4 A Short view of the sites Before going straight to the issues related to the management plans, we propose to give some general information on the sites, in order to situate which kind of protected areas we are talking about. The purpose is not to enter in details but to refer to global features: that means that one will not find here such or such point concerning a particular site1. This chapter is just to have in mind the context that one would necessarily have to keep in mind to understand better the issues that are being discussed. Surface of the sites: - there are very small sites (280 to 450 ha) but also quite large ones (19000 to 70000 ha). Legal status of the sites: - a large majority of the sites is declared as a protected area (national park, nature reserve, site of biological and ecological interest, manages natural reserve…) according to national laws; some have received an international status (Ramsar site, MAB Biosphere Reserve); but others have, at the moment, no protection status. Ownership of the lands: - there is a large variety of situations starting from the totally private site to the totally public property, going through intermediate situations. Main habitats/ecosystems: - there is a great variety of them: marshes, lagoons, rivers, brackish/fresh waters, estuarine, marine, sebkhas; dunes; garrigues, maquis, forests; grasslands, agricultural lands… Presence of globally threatened species (animals): - all of the sites are of importance for the conservation of internationally threatened species; the number of concerned species varied from 2 to 26 for a site (two sites making no reference to IUCN Red List species); quite all the classes of animals are concerned Main human activities: - agriculture, livestock, tourism are activities that exist in all sites; some also have other activities like forestry, salt production, fishing Main problems/threats: - pollution, solid waste, over-grazing, cutting the trees and the bushes, polderization are common problems, that the sites are facing; some also have to address illegal fishing or hunting, fires, urbanization, weak legal status, tourism development, land ownership and land tenure issues… State of progress of the drafting of the site management plans: - a majority of the sites is now working with a finalized management plan (8/14); four sites are on the verge to follow the previous eight ones within the next weeks or months; and two sites have just finished their first draft – these have not been covered by this 1
The reader is invited to refer to the MWC website for that matter : www.medwetcoast.com
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 8 of 107
review, for not available at the time (this explains why in the following chapters the reference to the sites is 12, not 14)
2. THE GUIDELINES ADOPTED FOR THE PRODUCTION OF MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR MWC PROJECT SITES The MWC proposed methodology for site management planning draws from the format recommended by the Ramsar Convention and from the Eurosite guidelines, enriched by the experience acquired in other international projects. The experts on site also considered various other guidelines. In particular, the IUCN ‘guidelines for management planning of protected areas’2 proved useful. Finally, the two MWC regional events – Zaranik regional seminar ‘from diagnosis to management plan’3 and the Amman training workshop4 on management plans (further reviewed in the next chapter) provided further practical elements to illustrate the guidelines. The MWC management planning process suggested to first carry out a comprehensive diagnosis assessment of the sites. The subjects of analysis included 1) the flora and fauna of the sites – Box 1 presents the outline for analysis as per the MWC Terms of Reference, 2) the human activities and spatial utilization of the site, 3) the biodiversity value of the site and 4) the hydrology of the site. Both the subjects and Terms of Reference of the diagnosis studies were presented in the MWC diagnosis guideline document5. 1 : Flora and Fauna 1.1.
Introduction - Summary assessment of existing information - Relevance of the site to the specific flora or fauna group. - Dynamics and evolution of the species group in the country, region and site - Assessment of causes of species regression and of species extinction rate 1.2. Species: Endemic, Rare, Noteworthy, Threatened - Description of the species - Distribution in the study area - Assessment of the present status/interest - Table of species - Map(s) of distribution of species and/or location of potential areas 1.3. Vegetation communities Introduction - Dynamics and evolution of vegetation in the region and site - Assessment of the causes of regression and/or degradation Vegetation structure - Description of the vegetation types - Spatial distribution of main vegetation types - Cover and stratification Qualitative evaluation of habitats - Quality of vegetation types - Fragmentation of plant formations – vulnerability 2
IUCN ‘guidelines for management planning of protected areas’, Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series N°10, IUCN/WCPA, 2003 3 MWC Regional Seminar, ‘from diagnosis to management planning’, Zaranik, Egypt, November 2001 4 MWC Regional Training, ‘training of trainers in management planning’, Amman, Jordan, March 2002 5 MWC Diagnosis Studies: Terms of Reference, 2000 – see also Annex 2
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 9 of 107
1.4 Analysis -
Regeneration rate of ligneous formations Ecological interest of the site Level of sensitivity of the different habitats used by interesting species Needs for further studies Priority objectives for protection Management and conservation measures proposed: Management actions, Zonation of the area Sustainable use Monitoring
Box. 1: Extract from the MedWetCoast terms of reference for diagnosis studies – abbreviated terms for flora and fauna
A subsequent guideline document was produced, proposing a framework for drawing up management plans. It is attached as Annex 3. The document was intended to: •
Provide a shared basis for drawing up terms of reference for management plans in the MWC project.
•
Provide methodological details on the general process of producing management plans, for validating the different stages and producing the document.
•
Define the roles of the various people, principally the managers, and the experts and summarily the role of stakeholders and local communities that would be involved in the process.
•
Provide a standard format for producing management plans, the purpose of which aimed at the establishment of a common reference between the sites, thereby facilitating the coordinated management of the sites as well as collaboration inbetween the sites.
The format of the management plans proposed by these guidelines was organized around three parts including: 1. Description of the site ("What the site contains ?") ; which is a general description of the site including information collected during the precedent diagnosis process 2. Assessment and objectives – (“what needs doing?”) 3. Action plan ("How to do it?”). The majority of the project countries made direct use of these guidelines in the drafting of their own terms of reference, also adapting them to the local context. Some of them have made minor modifications (mainly in the organization of the content of the document), but without any impact on the implementation. One country has used the frame of the guidelines but has added its own contribution to it. In that case, the main differences remain in a more synthetic description of the sites, a choice of scenarios, leaving the decisions to another step, a second part where actions are precisely evaluated in terms of agenda and of means. The Diagnosis and Management Plan guidelines overall put a strong emphasis on the description of the main natural features of the site – which is what a diagnosis should necessarily include in the first place! – and the preparation of a biodiversity baseline. But, on the other hand, it strikes the reader that:
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 10 of 107
a) little is proposed in terms of local knowledge and cultural & landscape values of the site, b) the approach that is being proposed does not help identify the pressures behind the degradation. There is no mention of a causal chain analysis. c) The diagnosis that is advocated does make due reference to the dynamic nature of the ecosystems, i.e. the trends that have led to the state that the site is now and the possible trends in the future? d) The ecosystem approach is not mentioned nor does it seem to be encouraged in the guidelines. The main difficulty for the establishment of the site diagnosis has certainly been related to the question of scale and objective. In certain cases, the scientific approach has been so precise that, perhaps, the real objective has been forgotten. The scientists able to realise these diagnosis studies are sometimes too much specialised in their own scientific field for delivering global and synthetic information. On the other hand, the guidelines for the establishment of the diagnosis have been very useful as a frame but have perhaps lead to make little relations between the different scientific fields. This has had an important effect in the analysis of the relations and inter-relations of the parameters acting in the sites. It is more important for the management of the site to know and to understand the processes and their evolutions than to deliver a long and exhaustive list of species. The question is more obvious when the diagnosis approaches the human society. A few diagnosis studies have given information on the relations to nature (some elements on the main activities like hunting or fishing, but quite nothing on other uses like cooking, collecting plants…). The guidelines for the establishment of the management plans follow directly the frame given by the diagnosis guidelines. Consequently, the difficulty to deliver a great synthesis on the way the area is really working proceeds from it. The guidelines propose a linear approach leading from the diagnosis to the action plan: perhaps there is something missing about the potential scenarios of evolution, the trends in the near future, the changes (both positive and negative) in the various external parameters, with corresponding consequences on the choices of management actions for these scenarios.
3. THE MANAGEMENT PLANNING PROCESS IN PRACTICE 3.1. Introduction: the context of management planning “…In past years, management planning was typically undertaken by a group of planning experts who were instructed by their organisation to research the relevant information, interpret it and devise the best possible plan based on their professional experience. Indeed some planners may never have visited the site. Today, as we move into increasingly complex planning environments, with higher levels of tourism and protected area resource use, it is not possible to continue in this way. Critical to the planning of protected areas is the widest possible consultation with stakeholders and the development of objectives that can be agreed
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 11 of 107
and adhered to by all who have an interest in the use and ongoing survival of the area concerned…“6 This ambitious vision defines a new vocation for the management plans which are not any more only technical documents focused on nature conservation but adaptive tools which frames the protected area within the broader planning of the territory and promotes sustainable management practices both within and in the vicinity of the protected area. This new generation of management plans also draws heavily from the lessons of the various generations of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDP). Surely, the process that this new management planning involves is more complex than that adopted during the management plans of the first generation, where the human factor was not considered or, at best, taken as background information. Of course, the task of the drafters was much made easier then. It simplified as well the objectives of management but left out almost totally the constraints and the potentialities bound to the human presence, also excluding the local communities as well as all their values, their knowledge and traditional activities. Perhaps more so than anywhere else and despite the complexities of the local settings, the new approach is well suited to the Mediterranean context where the natural "wild" spaces stricto sensu do not exist any more. Human activities on the Mediterranean coast have been intense for millennium and have significantly modelled the natural spaces, also modifying the landscapes and the vocation of these spaces. Today, the process of humanization of the Mediterranean banks continues and has even intensified. The extension of urbanization, the development of tourism and the intensification of human economic activities do pose a significant threat upon the remaining ‘natural’ spaces, which still display remarkable ecosystems and valuable habitats. Interestingly, one MWC management plan expert reported that “this [management planning] approach remains still experimental in the Mediterranean. It is at least a new approach for the majority of the designers of the management plans of MWC sites”. The reviewers thus wonder a) whether the international experience and practice in that area have adequately been shared with the Mediterranean region in the recent past and if not, why, and b) whether the training and the guidance provided by the MWC project was adequate in that respect and/or targeted the ‘right’ person. Surely, it would mean that additional extension work is needed in the region and to the region, in particular to enhance the understanding and skills of protected area and management plan experts in such fields as: participatory approach, integrated ecosystem approach, and causal chain analysis. Also one should realize that such an integrated management planning approach requires a change in the mentality of the decision makers, i.e. those in charge of urban and territory planning. This takes time. Today and in parallel to the foreword of Kenton Miller, a good number of guidelines and reference materials have been produced that provide an illustration of these integrated concepts as well as tools and methods to help protected area managers develop useful management plans. A list of these reference documents is attached as Annex 4.
6
Foreword of Kenton MILLER, in Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 10, WCPA/IUCN, 2003
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 12 of 107
3.2 Implementation of the MWC management planning process 3.2.1. The process Over a period of 1 to 2 years referred to as the ‘diagnosis phase’, professionals of various scientific training undertook a review of the natural resources of the sites, the status, problems and priority objectives for each of the thematic subjects relevant to the conservation of the area. In particular, detailed listings of the site resources have been included in the studies; particular attention was put on identifying rare, threatened and endemic species; and care was exercised to analyze the conservation objective for that subject or species. The studies constitute a relevant biodiversity baseline for the site and would have then helped for the identification of indicators of change and the development of monitoring protocols. The process then subsequently involves the drafting of the site management plans. Some MWC national components did not follow this linear process: 1) MWC Albania, also because of a long gap of project closure between the diagnosis phase and the start of the management planning, undertook to carry out a small number of complementary studies when preparing the management plans. It is worth noting that the first study that was carried out was a Stakeholders Analysis that helped identify the actors, their needs and interests. 2) MWC Lebanon, also because of lack of synchronicity with the protected area project which was supposed to undertake the diagnosis studies of the sites, chose to go ahead with the urgent site actions and the preparation of the management plans. They then defined the objectives first, with participation of the stakeholders, and the operational elements of the plan. Thereafter when information from the diagnosis studies became available, the management plans were fine-tuned and finalized. This seemed to have been effective in a) enhancing the involvement of the local partners, b) guiding the diagnosis studies to those study subjects of greater interest and value to the stakeholders. There, one can talk of an iterative process between the planning effort and the information gathering: one informing the other. 3) MWC Morocco completed its diagnosis studies in 2002/2003. It then chose to move to urgent actions on site on the basis of a short term ‘priority management plan’. Today, it is now drafting comprehensive site management plans, drawing from the experience of the priority management plans.
3.2.2. Training activities Conscious that the process necessitated skills and capacities that was possibly not available at the national level, the then-Regional Facilitation Unit implemented two capacity building regional activities to enhance skills in that area: a) a regional seminar to bring participants from the diagnosis phase onto the management planning phase: Zaranik, Egypt, November 2001
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 13 of 107
b) a training workshop in Amman, Jordan in March 2002 on ‘training of trainers for management planning’. This later activity resulted in the production of a CD-Rom of training of trainers in management planning - published in January 2004 in French/English/Arabic.. ATEN, the Tour du Valat, the Conservatoire du Littoral and the Royal Society for the Protection of Nature (RSPN) Jordan (for the second activity) provided the technical assistance and the resources for the scheduling of these two events. The regional training activities evidently helped the national teams acquire the skills and the practical insight. The regional events also provided some further elements to adjust the TORs and the process, for example suggesting particular tools for applying a participatory approach. The countries all confirmed that the Amman workshop proved useful7. Also the CD-Rom produced as a result of that workshop was well received and abundantly used by the national teams. Finally, it should be noted that all national teams reported having delivered some national training workshops, whether as a return from the Amman workshop or using the CD-Rom. Box 2 below illustrates the effort in Albania. Last months, MWC Albania put efforts in organizing three local training sessions with local stakeholders (Vlora, Novosele and Orikum) on issues related to management planning process, objectives, obstacles, community and local institutions involvement, etc. These meetings were attended by representatives of the local institutions as key actors who must support the elaboration and implementation of this plan. The structure of the management plan was described with case studies and concrete examples and the clear descriptions were made to interdisciplinary, multi sectoral and participatory character of this plan. Particular attention was drawn on the mechanism and instruments, such as Management Boards and Management Authorities, which will enable the progress and implementation of this process. The main phases were carefully explained to the participants pointing out the needs assessment, setting up of the management structures, evidence of the site problems and elaboration of the management objectives and management actions, conduction of the specific training according to the needs for implementation of the MP. … Several issues were addressed during these training and were noted as very crucial problems to be resolved for the proper management of the sites: soil sanitization (particularly two small wetlands – Kallenga and Limpua - close to Narta lagoon), very limited cultivation practices, need for improvement of the irrigation system, shift of the planting structure to vegetables and agriculture crops, monitoring of the sea-lagoon water exchange, sewage discharge in Narta Lagoon, illegal hunting, illegal fishing and other illegal activities.
7
The Mid Term Review confirmed “The training done in partnership with one southern institution (Training of Trainers in Amman, Jordan) was particularly appreciated. It was found, in general, to be more culturally appropriate, bringing together a mix of participatory workshop-like and professorial approaches. This led to a better overall balance in learning methods when compared to other training, which tended to be more professorial in nature. The training was also more appropriate from a language perspective, allowing conversation in English, French and Arabic on occasion, and thus favoring a more effective transfer of knowledge and environment to exchange between participants” – final report, October 2003/page 18.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 14 of 107
Box 2: MWC Albania. Report for the MWC Newsletter of April 2004
3.2.3. The technical assistance One interesting and essential element of the MWC management planning process was the reliance on a team of international experts, one for each country (the same person acted as the international expert often for more than one country). The expert was instrumental in further guiding, accompanying and, at times, reviewing and clearing the process and the document. One expert noted that “the main part of the training was made through the technical support of the international expert”. The review note that the TORs of the international expert included both the task to a) technically support the teams of the project (at the national and local level) as well as the experts assigned to this effort all through the process and b) evaluate and rectify if necessary, the diagnosis and management plans. Because of the possible conflict of interest there, but also simply because of the normal professional bias of any international expert, however talented and skilled he or she may be, current best practice of management planning best would suggest that the two tasks of ‘guiding’ and ‘evaluation’ be entrusted with different bodies or that the latter be subject to a ‘peer review’. In fact, when this arrangement was designed, the international experts were to meet regularly and follow a similar methodology and reporting. But it seems that the coordination and exchange among the experts did not adequately take place, in part because each of the national components was progressing at a different pace, thereby making it difficult to share across the network. In addition, each of the international experts was recruited by the respective national component and worked along TORs that were proper to the context and status of that national component and according to the specific requests and needs of the national teams. It would have necessarily led to some discrepancies across the nature of the technical assistance provided and the time of tasks delivered.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 15 of 107
The review points out that the use of international experts as technical assistance and coaching is a positive initiative and would have helped much in enhancing the skills of the national counterpart. On the other hand, it regrets that the opportunity was not used to pull together the international experts more and use them as a technical ‘peer review’ of the management plan products.
3.2.4. The drafting teams Each of the countries relied on different arrangements to actually draft the plans. In three of the countries, the plans were essentially drafted by lead experts from the diagnosis phase, assisted by the MWC site and local teams as well as the MWC national office. In one country, it called upon a consultancy company recruited by tender to develop the plans. In one other country, the site managers themselves drafted the documents. Finally, in another, the plans were drafted by a team of site managers and local partners. One can say that involving the local actors as much as possible in the drafting should mean greater ownership and thus bring greater chances of acceptability and adhesion to it. Overall, though, the local involvement in the MWC drafting process would have been limited. Some of the reason comes from the fact that insufficient time and effort was allocated to the preparation for the management plans and to building up the skills of the communities and local actors. Empowering local actors to take charge of the planning process or even to take part in it takes a lot of time and effort. Great frustration was met when the drafting teams tried to bring on board local actors; they soon realized that the latter could not contribute constructively to the process and that opening up the process usually meant additional headaches and problems. Part of the problem may also come from the fact that there is little history and practice in the region for local communities to participate in any planning process. Finally, a further element would be the capacity of the drafting team itself in terms of communication and social skills. The project has demonstrated that reaching out to the communities and the local actors take dedicated skills, those of a community facilitator. The MWC drafting teams rarely included that type of expertise on board. This would have resulted in significant gaps: a) there is little account of the perceptions of the people for their environment and of the relations between populations and nature. The management plans have very few information about the traditional use of animals and vegetables of the sites. More globally, aspects linked to the immaterial cultural heritage were not addressed; b) there is little information of whether the objectives of the management plans are socially acceptable for the local stakeholders; and c) it is unclear what actions in the work plan can be carried out by what actors. Most of the proposed actions in the implementation plan are of the resort of the central ministries or at best, of the municipality at times. There are extremely few actions entrusted with a local stakeholder (professional organisation, local NGO) In a number of MWC countries, the same experts that took part in the diagnosis were involved in the preparation of the Management Plans. This clearly helped in making the link between the two phases, also facilitating the mobilisation of the management plan teams, since most of the experts recruited for that purpose already knew each other and had worked on the site.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 16 of 107
3.2.5 A participatory approach? A ‘participative approach’ was adopted during the process by all countries, but at differing levels of participation. It allowed though some exchange of information between experts and partners, the identification of the most influential actors, their roles, concerns, needs and oppositions. It also allowed starting a process of cooperation on the long term with institutions, NGOs and the population. The ‘participatory approach’ that was generally followed by MWC was based on commonly used standard methodologies: 1. 2.
3.
Identification of the local partners and socio-economic assessment of the specific groups; Sampling in representative groups; organization of participatory workshops with their representatives in order to present the organizations, to identify their means of subsistence and their system of production, their problems and their wishes with respect to the use of the natural resources and their expectations of the project ; Identification of institutional frameworks at the local level; identification and evaluation of the role of the institutional partners, the socio-professional organizations and NGOs.
Moving on promptly to implement urgent actions identified in the diagnosis phase has allowed, in some cases, the establishment of relations of confidence between the project and the population. In one country, particular effort was made to identify the area of convergence between the most immediate requests and needs of the population, on the one hand, and needs for a better management and protection of the protected areas, on the other hand. This approach seems to have gained good support from the local stakeholders. It is depicted below in graph 1. Site diagnoses
Environment problems and threats
Community Problems and gaps
Conservation objectives
Community development objectives
Management plan
PRA
Commo n objectives
Graph 1: Presentation of Dr. Magda Ghonem, MWC Egypt, RAC3, Tunis, October 2003
Commo n Activities
Commo n activities
This MWC approach was, on the whole, substantially limited and did not allow either the full involvement of the population in the process or their appropriation of the project. The socio-
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 17 of 107
economic study8 currently being undertaken by the MWC RCU within the framework of the project knowledge management component reviews how the project has addressed the socioeconomic issues and how it has involved the local stakeholders. The reader is invited to refer to it for a full account. On the other hand, the review would like to point out that, if the project has focused on putting in place the ‘enabling conditions’ (adoption of management plans, steering committees, etc.), the second order objectives must be about ‘changes in behavior’. It is the ‘changes in behavior’ of institutions, users, decision makers and also project staff from local to national levels that will bring about the goal that the project aspires to, i.e. ‘the harvest’: some social and/or environmental qualities maintained, restored or improved9. And changing behavior implies: 1) Getting the trust of these target groups that are able to make the necessary changes in the use of the resources, in the planning and policy setting. 2) Raising their education and conscientiousness of the issues and of the impacts of the conflicts, inappropriate and over use; 3) Facilitating the involvement of the target groups in the implementation of remedial actions. Getting the trust of the people and mobilising their efforts is not easy. International experience points out to some pragmatic suggestions, although in no way a recipe, that the review would like to recall, for possible reference: 1) finding ways to listen to the people and being understood by untrained individuals who would not share the similar technical language or logic. 2) Realising that, at times, the technical and scientific explanations given to a certain physical problem, may conflict with the knowledge of the local population and that this knowledge, sometimes seen as inferior or deficient, is in fact more sensitive to ‘local realities’ and feasibility10. 3) Incorporating the social perceptions of natural resources in the development of the management planning strategies: it reinforces the quality and relevance of the technical analysis (as well as acceptance of the strategies by the target groups). 4) Encouraging voluntary agreements and informal partnerships between the target groups or stakeholders. 5) Holding the various groups accountable for the management of a certain resource and for the implementation of actions directly relevant to their uses of the resources. At the same, time, adequately displaying their work (e.g. fishermen association made responsible for ensuring the use of proper turtle-friendly fishing gears among the fishermen and
8
MWC RCU Socio-Economic Study : lessons learned from the MedWetCoast project, December 2005 Terminology from Olsen et al. (1998) in Olsen, S.B. and Nickerson, D. (2003) ‘the governance of coastal ecosystems at the regional scale, an analysis of the strategies and outcomes of long-term programs’, Coastal Management Report 2243. Coastal Resources Centre, University of Rhode Island. 10 Adapted from Yearly, S., Forester, J., Bailey, P. (2000) ‘Participacao e pericia Cientifica – sobre os modeles ceinttificos e os seus publicos. Cultural Cientifica e participacao publica, Maria Eduarda Goncalves (org.), Celta Editora, Lisboa, 183-200. 9
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 18 of 107
encouraged to be advocate of sea turtle protection – in schools, public awareness events, etc.) Even if the participative approach has not been perfect, the effort made by each of the teams in the project sites is certainly crucial for the success of the implementation of the management plans in the next years. The local stakeholders and the local population know that a complex and long process is in action and that the socio-economic aspects are not forgotten. One real difficulty certainly remains in the impatience that the local community could develop when looking at field progress. Another could be that the politicians be embarrassed by the sound interest in and knowledge of the local population for the management of the sites: their liberty of decision will be reduced in the proportion of the level of participation. The decision-makers and the population are now obliged to work together for the same objective: to conserve the environment for a sustainable development.
4. LESSON LEARNED FROM THE MWC PROJECT 4.1. FEEDING DIAGNOSIS INTO MANAGEMENT PLANS For most of the countries, the MWC diagnosis was the first such undertaking for the site. It aimed to be comprehensive, carried out by a team of experts that had been recruited according to their particular skills and experience, and over a period of 6 to 18/24 months.
4.1.1. Gaps in the subjects analysed As the review of the diagnosis reports point out, the exercise was clearly directed to nature conservation objectives. The pool of experts consisted mainly of naturalists. But there again, one expert noted that “the subject has mainly be terrestrial; there were no TORs for fish, aquatic invertebrates, or plankton”. Another clear weakness in the subject matters was the socio-economic field. The socioeconomic studies were generally not appropriate and not operational for the development of the management plans. The analysis of the cultural heritage has been considered in a general way, more in terms of the knowledge concerning sites than as behaviors. Of course, the interests in the cultural sites will give important information for the interpretation of the sites and the related development of ecotourism. The peer knowledge of the way that the local population is living and thinking because of their own culture (religion, beliefs, history, know-how…) is crucial for those who would want to manage a territory.
4.1.2. Socio-economic analysis The socio-economic analysis remained a very macro analysis with little site approach and little behavioral approach. In that, it followed the guidelines: there is generally good background information relating to demographics and population, main economic sectors, and land uses.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 19 of 107
But the review regrets that there was little analysis of a) the linkages between man and nature: why do they carry out this activity this way?, b) detailing the vision of the population for the site (what do they want the site to look like or to become?) and c) detailing the social and economic values of the site (see also section 4.4). The review would like to point out though that this type of analysis surely takes a dedicated effort and time that was probably not available or not encouraged in the diagnosis phase. The project having for main vocation the protection of the biodiversity of the sites, the approach adopted in the construction of the economic component was limited to getting socio-economic support for nature preservation. From the start, the modest allocation and attention devoted to the socio-economic analysis then showed some weakness and the following should particularly be noted: -
-
-
In the teams of experts in charge of the diagnosis and then the management plans, we will find a pool of diversified specialists for the ecological component while, to handle the socioeconomic component, the skills were limited. One can find, at times, a socioeconomist and sometimes an agronomist but never a micro-economist, nor specialists by activity (no specialist in ecotourism for example, and yet it is an activity which was adopted in all of the management plans!) if some suggestions were provided in the diagnosis studies for encouraging specific sustainable economic livelihoods, the definition of the legal, institutional and financial tools which could make these activities possible and sustainable were not addressed. Besides, the economic context and markets for these possible economic activities were not explicitly analyzed to justify the opportunity of these projects. The analysis of certain usage or exploitation of natural resource, from a behavioral perspective, is very weak, when available. For example, one would like to know more about hunting and poaching when it is mentioned: who carries it out? And why? Is it for sport, for leisure, for livelihood, for social status, for servicing the local markets, for hotels and restaurants? Who eats the game, etc.? One encouraging example here is the study that was carried out in Morocco in mid-2005 reviewing the motivations of tourists that visit the site of the Moulouya, as box 3 below reports. Tourism analysis at the Moulouya site – Morocco. With the aim to rationalize the use of natural ecosystems for leisure & tourism as well as environmental education, MWC Morocco undertook a qualitative study of tourist visits to the Moulouya site between April and July 2005. The ultimate objective of the study was to define, in a participatory way, what measures would need to be put in place to ensure a more sensible economic management of the area
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 20 of 107
while preserving nature and the rich biological heritage of the site. The objective of the study was to understand why the visitors come to the site and what they look for. This would guide the setting of site physical infrastructure for better conservation. The method used for this study was developed with a view to gather as much information as possible both in terms of the type and nature of the visits and in terms of the demands expressed by the visitors. It also took into account the concerns of the various concerned actors. The expected results include: number of visits, characteristics of the visits, characteristics of the visitors. Box 3. MWC Morocco. July 2005
-
The links between man and nature was approached only in terms of exploitation of natural resources and not in terms of knowledge and local behavior with regards to biodiversity – the local knowledge and ‘savoir faire’ would deserve more attention. The aspects related to governance were modestly approached. The stakeholder's analysis was carried out only on two of the MWC sites.
The review also notes that while getting socioeconomic support for the preservation of the area can be possible in the small sites where the stakes are simple, on the majority of the MWC sites, the stakes of development are so significant that setting up meaningful development programs that can at best limit the pressures appears utopian in comparison with the financial, technical and human means assigned to the project. The most complex sites where pressures upon the resources reach proportions which cannot be supported by the project should possibly be integrated as ecological component in a more global strategy of land use plan of the territory or in the framework of integrated management projects. However, the review would like to insist that the sustainability of the management of these protected areas is conditioned upon taking into consideration socio-economic issues (see also section 4.2 on causal chain analysis).
4.1.2. Exhaustive studies but segmented analysis The diagnosis experts adopted an approach that would be specific to the scientists by seeking the exhaustiveness of the knowledge of the sites. One expert pointed out that “the challenge in this phase has been to keep the scientists under guidance… they had a tendency to move on with a scientific approach, i.e. one that requires trying to have a full picture of the situation before making any analysis, and as such undertook complete and comprehensive inventories of things”11. The review noted that the sectorial analysis of the diagnosis phase has probably segmented too much the ecological and ecosystem approach. Recognizing that it is difficult to bring together the different thematic diagnoses, it is regrettable that the consolidation studies have rather been a compilation of the technical studies with repetitions and copy & paste rather than an integrated synthesis. International experience tells us that “science is essential for defining what is, but is of limited usefulness when deciding what should be. Success lies in interweaving both”.12 11
Report of the MWC MPPR regional workshop, Rabat, June 2005 Frank van der Meulen, Delft NL in ‘ICZM Some Ten Years after Rio : Where do We Stand and Which Way to Go’ at MedCoast 05 conference.
12
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 21 of 107
4.1.3 Conclusion All the countries have made an important effort for developing the sites diagnosis. If the results are not totally satisfying, it is perhaps that the guidelines had not stressed sufficiently on the importance of looking carefully at the synthetic approach. The positive results are certainly that, in many cases, the knowledge of the sites has progressed ("obligation" to set up the necessary inventories) and that the scientists have had to think in the application of their data into an action plan. Nevertheless, the links between the diagnoses and the management plans seem not totally evident. The action plan and the priority actions are sometimes more related to a logical approach than to the consequences of the diagnosis results (the lack of global views and of the impact of the scenarios on the evolution of the sites is partly responsible for that situation). The sites managers have developed participative processes with the local stakeholders, but they have met some difficulties for pursuing this process after the first phase of the diagnosis. This is normal if we look at how heavy the task is of establishing a diagnosis and then the corresponding management plan. This represents a weakness for the future if we consider the high importance of the adhesion of local populations to this kind of project. Consequently, the establishment of "basic and urgent actions", over and beyond the initial ‘urgent measures’ identified in the diagnosis phase and prioritize in the existing management plans, is needed: this will show to the local society that the management plans are also made for them and that they will be involved in the foreseen developments. The initiative of MWC Morocco along those lines could be promising13. The development of these first actions must not compromise the structure of the management plans: they must be explained (and subject to public communication) as a part of a long process.
4.2. CAUSAL CHAIN ANALYSIS Causal Chain Analysis is a process that seeks to locate the underlying causes of the problems beyond the apparent and immediate causes, and then proceed to resolve problems and fundamental risks by treating these causes. This process counters the expedient attitude that looks for direct solutions of the problems or their visible or immediate causes. Patching up symptoms quickly, the problem then seems temporarily solved. Later, the problem may reproduce, and a similar process of quick repair would be undertaken; an ineffective and costly strategy in the long term.
13
At the time of writing, the consultants have little information on the initial undertaking of MWC Morocco to produce a ‘priority and short term management plan’ for the Moulouya. They understand though that the plans are purposefully designed to be simple, short term and action-oriented, a more detailed and comprehensive management plan would be drafted in a next stage.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 22 of 107
The process allows structuring logically the chain of information that was collected by the experts during their investigations on the field and with the local actors through formal and informal exchanges. When the principle of causal chain analysis is adopted, another challenge though is that, very often, experts totally take over the construction of the process; brainstorming is organized behind closed doors, excluding the engaging parties, mainly the local communities, in order to go more quickly and avoid the logistic constraints. In the case of a conventional analysis, the limits of the analysis do not exceed the boundaries of the site and are generally focused on intrinsic problems and an immediate causality. The causal chain analysis allows leading sometimes to remote, unsuspected causes that are outside of the usual sphere of activity of the planners: • • •
geographic: as for example the discharge of pesticides in a distant flow of a river flowing in a wetland which causes an important mortality to salamanders worship, as for example the sacrifice of the chameleon against the evil spell behavioral, as for example the disinterest or the hostility of influential decision makers with regard to a project for the management of protected areas because that person considers the ecological stake marginal compared to other stakes
4.2.1. What the guidelines say The MWC guidelines that were recommended by the regional unit do not refer to the process of “causal chain analysis" and "logical framework" like planning tools for the management of protected areas. The "Eurosite" and "Ramsar" guidelines, used as reference, do not evoke them either. Those tools allow for an easy hierarchical organization of the issues and problems and prepare for the logical arrangements of the objectives, enabling a higher legibility of the analysis and clear prioritisation of the project actions. Not using these tools in the crucial analytical phase has been a major problem in the planning process. The causal chain approach would have come up for the first time in the project during the training that was organized in Jordan in March 2002, during which some of the managers of the sites, but also project staff and some experts assigned to the preparation of the management plans were presented with a very explicit training on the logical framework. The CD-Rom "Training of Trainers on Management Planning, MWC 2004" provided some further details on these tools.
4.2.2. MWC process Except for two sites which adopted the causal chain analysis to build their action plan, most of the management planning process consisted in carrying out a listing of the main problems and summary explanations of these problems. As a consequence, the clarity of the analysis was considerably reduced and the justification of the strategy that was finally adopted for management planning was difficult sometimes to appreciate. The chain between the stakes, the objectives and the action plans was not made clear in the presentation.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 23 of 107
Sometimes as well, the problems are not clearly identified, vaguely defined and without geographic location. As a result, the management plans spell out generic operational objectives, without much real value for future management. It is obvious that the difficult point is constituted by the notion of "causal chain analysis". As said before, this would have been taken into account since the first establishment of the diagnosis. The mechanisms of the ecosystems and anthroposystems would have been analyzed more in terms of dynamic and potentialities of evolution. This would have led the sites managers to produce matrices of evolution, according to different scenarios. From that, it would have been possible to define a strategy and the priorities.
4.2.3. Conclusion The causal chain analysis has not been addressed clearly in general. The difficulty of this approach is great for every sites in the world but is greater when a team, "discovering" its territory, has not the sufficient maturity and assurance for entering this process. The role of the scientists here is capital: they must help the team in understanding the causal chains linkages, making the relations between each pieces of knowledge. The site teams have then to verify how the territories and the societies could react to the choices they have done. They have to check it by mathematic models but also with the local population (psychological reactions). The next management plans would have to address better these causal chains analysis.
4.3. LOOKING BEYOND THE FENCES OR THE IMPORTANCE OF ECOSYSTEM INTEGRATION As every protected area managers know: the boundaries of their sites are generally not ideal but just the best possible option (see "zoning and buffer zone" in this report). They are not ideal because they cannot consider all the parameters that, all together, constitute the identity of a territory. The other difficulty is that this territory, rapidly defined as an entity, is in fact lightly changing if we use a geographical, a historical, a cultural, an administrative or an ecological approach. The consequence is that some pieces are always missing in the puzzle. The other question is the real or potential relations that the protected area has or has to have with the surrounding territories. In the "Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas" (Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 10, WCPA/IUCN, 2003), it is recommended, when preparing a management plan, to: "ensure that the protected area will be considered as a whole i.e. adopt a "systems approach". This recognises the importance of an analysis of separate issues, but stresses a complete view of all issues or "systems" that are involved".
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 24 of 107
In "Caring for the Earth: a strategy for sustainable living”14, it was recommended "that the protected areas do not become oases of diversity in a desert of uniformity, by providing for their integration within policies for the management of surroundings lands and waters". What are the answers given by the sites of the MedWetCoast project to these questions?
4.3.1. Integration of the ecosystems within the sites All MWC site management plans give information on the ecosystems existing in the area. The habitats though are described with great differences of precision: some are contained in few lines, others are detailed in 4-5 pages with complete lists of flora species. This is a first indication on the small importance given to the ecosystems themselves (it is more obvious if compared with the large place given to the flora and fauna descriptions). The ecosystems are consequently limited to a more or less precise description of the habitats: vegetation associations, organisation of flora strata in relation with geomorphology and hydrology. A majority of the sites refers to the Corine classification. The general feeling is that the analysis is following academic patterns which have their fundamental interests but are insufficient for management purposes. The ecosystems, or, more precisely, the habitats described are rarely shown as dynamic in relation to their natural cycles and to their socio-cultural-economic environment. The chapter "ecological criteria", in the majority of the management plans, does not give that necessary information: the analysis remains too much "cut" into sectors (fragility, rarity, naturalness, typicality…). Synthetic descriptions of the ecosystems, of their interfaces, of their dynamics, of the direct and indirect impacts of the anthropo-systems is certainly needed to give a better view of how the site is functioning and evolving and what are the potentials of evolution. This tool would be very useful for the sites managers.
4.3.2. Integration of the ecosystems outside the sites The definition of the boundaries of protected areas is a necessity for many reasons, an important one being to have a "concrete" territory where to enforce the regulations related to Nature conservation. Like for frontiers between nations, their role is not to forbid the entrances and exits but to control them in accordance with specific rules. If we understand an "ecosystem" as an entity of natural and anthropological features functioning with relations and inter-relations, we are at the same time convinced that a protected area limit may cut across a number of ecosystems. Some examples taken within the MWC sites show that this question is not theoretical. Many wetlands sites are in relation with rivers. The watershed basins are not totally covered by the 14
Caring for the Earth : a Strategy for Sustainable Living, IUCN/WWF/UNEP, 1991
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 25 of 107
protected areas of the project. This is quite normal if we consider the number of square kilometres to take into account and, in many cases, the low value of the heritage that, in that case, would have to be included in the site. But, the sites managers cannot manage the wetland without looking outside of their limits. To pump water for irrigation or to construct a dam upstream for electricity has undoubtedly effects on the protected wetland. The problem can be more complex if, like for some sites of the project, a part of the watershed basin is situated in a foreign country. A second example is given by the question of the marine ecosystems. They have not been included formally in the diagnosis and in the management plans but nearly all the sites are touching these ecosystems or have connection channels with the sea. The communication between the sea and the lagoons or the lakes is one question to resolve in order to control salinity of the waters. This is not sufficient if we know that some species, like the sea bass, are using the lagoons and the sea for their daily life. If the nearby sea waters are polluted or if there is over-fishing along the shore, it could reduce the stock of sea bass. This fact could influence the ecological organisation of the lagoon as well as its economy. Fishermen of these sites accuse sea-fishermen of destroying the coastal fish resource: jealousy or reality? The site managers need to know more and would have to develop studies on that question, even if the problem seems to be situated in an outside ecosystem. The sea turtles are present in some of the MWC sites where they use beaches and sand dunes for nesting. It is something of high importance for the sites as well as for the global Mediterranean natural heritage. By definition, the site managers cannot address only the question of protection of the dunes: they have to face with the management of the fishing gear along the shore, the tourists that want to swim there, the lights of the neighbouring city that disturb the turtles. It seems that, at the difference of the preceding examples, the site managers have there looked outside their strict boundaries. This could be a good example for encouraging the other sites that are subjected to problems coming from outside, to consider these problems and to search solutions with the exterior groups, organisations, administrations.
4.3.3. The sensitivity and reactivity to general changes Global exterior changes can deeply influence the protected areas of the project. The price of the sheep meat has a relation to the management of grazing. The increase of the prices could lead to the increase of the number of animals and consequently to overgrazing. The collapse of the prices could push the breeders to diminish or to abandon their activity with drastic changes to the ecosystems. The development of tourism or ecotourism is one of the objectives that all of the sites are looking for. The impact of tourism is not only found in the construction of hotels or in the increase of pollution. For example, it could influence the catches of fish in terms of quantity as well as of quality. The demand from the hotels for a greater production will induce a risk of over-fishing. And the demand of the tourists for some specific species (sea bass, soles…) will increase the catches of these species leading to the risk of disappearance and consequently of imbalance within the lagoon ecosystem.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 26 of 107
When these points have been discussed with the site managers, they have shown scepticism or fear. Scepticism was related to the fact that they think the global economy has, at the moment, very little impact on the local traditional society: this kind of problem is considered to be very far and would not reach the sites and influence the ecosystems. Fear because of the feeling that a site manager is totally powerless in front of these questions of national or international relevance. We then first have to stress on the imminence of great changes foreseen for the very next years: incredible tourist projects are being programmed (some are yet in work) as well as the opening of international highways or large irrigated areas. We must be conscious of these evolutions, certainly necessary for the development of the national economy but problematic for the sites. We are conscious that they are exterior events, and that sites managers have no right or competence to intervene. But we think that these evolutions must be taken into consideration sufficiently in advance for anticipating the next future of the sites. That means that one should not be afraid of participating in the meetings for the preparation of these projects, to hear and to speak of the protected area management plans. That means also to imagine answers to the coming problems (scenarios of evolution) and to be convinced that the sites are not at all marvellous places that can leave isolated from the rest of the world because they are protected areas.
4.3.4. Conclusion We understand that the questions related to the integration of the ecosystems (global synthesis of the functioning, overview of the exterior parameters) are quite difficult to cope with for teams which are at the very first step of the management plans approach. We would however suggest: - to develop a chapter within the management plan on ecosystems as a whole, with the assistance of scientific institutions; - to select indicators for the follow-up of the influence of exterior facts; - to set up scenarios that maps the possible evolution for the next years and to revise them at mid-term of the current management plan. Finally, the review would like to point out that, to the 6 protocols already in existence for the Barcelona Convention, a new protocol is currently in the making for Integrated Coastal Area Management (‘ICAM protocol’). Once adopted and ratified, countries are obliged to adjust their national legislation accordingly. The draft document argues for an ecosystem approach. It calls for the integrity of coastal ecosystems, making particular reference to specific coastal ecosystems: coastal landscapes, wetlands and estuaries, coastal forests and woods, dunes, and islands and small islands. The general principles of the draft Protocol also advocates, among other things, that: – coastal zone shall be managed through a global and concerted approach - interaction and interdependence between the maritime part and the land part - co-ordination between the various maritime and land authorities It is also interesting to note that it makes an explicit recommendation for a) coastal erosion (article 10), b) cultural heritage (article 11) and participation (article 12). It suggests a number of instruments for ICAM, namely: observatories and national inventories of coastal zones; permanent monitoring; national coastal strategies, plans and programmes; environmental
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 27 of 107
assessments; and economic and financial instruments15. The review would like to emphasize that the analysis and recommendations of this report is in line with the forthcoming ICAM protocol.
4.4. ASSESSING THE VALUES OF THE SITES "In assessing the significance of a protected area, the planner should ask if the area contains: • • • • • • • • • • • •
outstanding examples of natural, scenic, geological, scientific, ecological, floral, faunal and recreational values unique biological attributes, vegetation types and landforms areas essential for protecting the ecological integrity of the protected area as a whole (including areas critical for maintaining water flow and quality) areas and resources that are vital (economically, culturally or in other ways) to local communities areas and resources which provide essential services to people outside the protected area, especially where these have significant economic or political values rare and endemic plants and animals sensitive, threatened or endangered plants and animals and habitats resources that are unusually sensitive to human use outstanding of modified landscapes and evidence of sustainable use of natural resources major archaeological or historical sites major cultural sites features with world-wide recognition (e.g. as World Heritage)".
("Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas", Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 10, WCPA/IUCN, 2003). The IUCN guidelines make it very clear that the values of a protected area is not at all only related to natural species (flora, fauna) but insist on the importance of ecological features as a whole (habitats, ecosystems) as well as on the economical or cultural values or on the landscapes. The cultural values must not be only of interest as heritage objects but also as a part of the ecosystems (how local communities are using and interpreting their environment). The landscapes have to be analysed not only as an aesthetical feature favourable to tourist development but more as the reflect of the interrelations between Man and Nature. Indeed, the “memory” of the Mediterranean sites is often also important as their natural value. It transcribes through its archaeological heritage but also through the rich immaterial cultural heritage on all the coast of the Mediterranean Sea with often ancestral links with the nature. We propose here to look at the situations and answers of the MWC sites to the question of the values.
15
Extract from draft UNEP MAP ICAM Protocol to the Barcelona Convention … March 2005
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 28 of 107
4.4.1. The natural values All the sites of the project (12/12) have made a considerable effort to summarize the best knowledge available on the flora and fauna of their territories, during the diagnosis phase. Some have even set up inventories and studies for completing the data. This is an important positive result related to the MWC project, even if a lot still have to be done in the field of inventories, both in the use of tested methodology and in the choice of species as indicators (but we must be conscious that "old" protected areas in developed countries have not yet complete dataset). The questions that have not been really well addressed are the following: • • •
the integration of the idea that a species is a part of a whole complex (biotope, habitat, ecosystem…) the relativity of the status of a species (a globally threatened specie can be locally abundant) the relativity of the status of a species for local communities
In the preceding chapter of this report, we have mentioned that a better integration of the ecosystems go through an ecosystemic approach. A too little number of the MWC sites management plans give an analysis of the ecosystems. The majority of the documents are considering inventories, threats, and status species after species but rarely take a habitat with all its components, describing the relations and the problems. This could lead to implementation of actions concerning specific species but not the mechanisms in-between; and everyone knows that favouring one species without regard to another can be the opening of a new imbalance. All the sites have referred to national and international "red lists". This gives an excellent and impartial approach of the status as well as of the importance of the species observed within the area. We would stress though that this approach could also be a source of misunderstanding both for the managers of the site and for the local communities. First, the managers have to consider that the status is not an absolute tool. It is important to know if a species is globally threatened but it is at least important to understand why it is threatened only locally or, at the reverse, why it is endangered everywhere but not in the considered site. The questions of relativity and scales should be taken more into account by the management plans. Secondly, that approach could have, perhaps, opened a cooperation network between the sites that does not seem to be active actually. The relativity of the scarceness and of the degrees of threat must also be better addressed by the site managers, as it is a difficult concept to grasp for local communities. Just saying that a species must be protected because it is classified internationally as critically endangered needs a lot of explanations. If not, how can the local population understand that the site managers propose a strict protection status for a species that they can see thousand of individuals every day?
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 29 of 107
4.4.2. The socio-cultural values One can say that the participative approach has given way to the expression of the cultural features of the sites. If we look carefully to the management plans, we are not totally convinced that the cultural dimension has been fully taken into account. We mean that the mentions of archaeological and cultural sites or traditional events are necessary but not sufficient. The question of the different values given by local people to the natural components of the site would be more relevant (what is used, potentially used, not used and what for – internal or external economy, traditional event, religious facts, memory of the sites, links between man and biodiversity, agro-biodiversity …). The resemblance and differences of values with those of the technical team would be decisive for the management of the area. However, we can find a subjacent gap concerning the relation between the man and his inheritance: few or not documented, demonstrating a relatively vertical and "scientist" approach adopted in the assessment of the patrimonial values. This gap deprives the manager of significant elements during the management process, Some examples taken within the management plans give a concrete sense to that remark. The wild boar is considered as too abundant in some sites. As we are in Muslim countries, the boar is not considered as a game: it has no value for local people. Consequently, actions of regulation of these animals will be of killing them, not hunting them. The involvement of the population would have been different if the boars had had economical value. Hunting with hawks is considered in the countries of the southern bank of the Mediterranean as a traditional activity. It is not just an entertainment but it is an act that gives a real social status to those that practise it. The sound cultural value is here hugely in contradiction with the protection of these birds of prey for ethical reasons (use of wild animals) and species conservation (catch of eggs and of living specimens). The respect of the local tradition cannot lead to the non respect of the Nature conservation rules. The protection of the nesting places is an insufficient measure as it does not give an answer to the socio-cultural value of the birds of prey. The sustainable conservation of the sites needs, in that case, a dialogue with local population to find an acceptable solution for Nature as well as for Culture. Another aspect of the cultural values is related to medicinal plants and local traditional domestic and cultivated strains. Every site persons that the review team has questioned on these matters invariably answered that it is of high importance. But the analysis of the management plans gives a quite different answer: - no mention of the matter: - mention without list of species: - mention with list of species:
9/12 sites 1/12 sites 2/12 sites
Some site managers have considered that at the time of the diagnosis, they were not concerned with the question of the medicinal plants; some of the same site managers have admitted during discussions that their position does not have a real scientific basis. We want here to insist on the importance of these questions. The sites have, in many cases, cultural and economical values (difficult, in general, to measure) but also, these cultural features are part of the biodiversity of the site: they must be addressed for these two reasons. MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 30 of 107
Roman Aqueduc in Tyr Coast Nature Reserve, Monastery of Zvernec, Narta lagoon, Albania Lebanon
4.4.3. The landscapes The cultural landscapes are recognized by IUCN as a particular category (category V), are recognized by the World Heritage Convention16, and are recognized by a European Convention17. There, landscapes are mentioned as one of the values that participate in the assessment of the overall value of the protected area (see introduction to this chapter). That value was also referred in the "Guidelines for the production of Management Plans for MWC project sites". A short analysis of how that question has been following results: - no reference to landscapes: - reference as a tourist value: - reference as a heritage value:
taken into account by the sites gives the 5/12 sites 5/12 sites 2/12 sites
Even if, when questioned, all the site experts stressed on the importance of landscape as a major value, they have not really taken this into consideration in their management plans. The general impression is that they have not considered landscapes as a real (serious?) value. Some quotations from the management plans sound more like phrases to appeal to tourists than descriptions of the results of the inter-relations between Nature and Man along the times: - "the sweeping forms of the coastal sand dunes are aesthetically pleasing…" - "the soft sandy beaches and the unique gradation of the azure colour of the sea…" - "the changing mood of the marsh as light moves from one mountain range to another, as colours change with the seasons…" Only one site has tried to give a precise description of the landscapes included in its territory (another one having just sketched it). We wish to insist on the importance of the landscapes as 16 17
World Heritage Convention, Unesco, 1972; revised in 1992 European Landscape Convention, Council of Europe, 2000
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 31 of 107
a fundamental value of the concerned sites. Beside the tourist attraction that can follow from them, it is the best place for understanding the relations and inter-relations, the evolutions, between natural features and societies. It is certainly there that the ecosystemic functioning is the more evident. The landscapes represent places of synthesis of the natural and human relations: they offer one of the best occasions of understanding the environment as a whole. In these cases, the analytic approach is totally insufficient. The landscapes help the sites managers consider every parameter (and their dynamics) of the territories they are in charge of. The landscapes provide also the best information for other fields of works related to the protected areas. They are also useful for interpretation purposes for local populations to whom they are familiar, even if they cannot explain them. Their pedagogical qualities may also be favourable to the development of ecotourism activities.
4.4.4. Conclusion The values that are presented in the management plans mainly focus on biological values and are spelled out in a static way, as if they are dedicated only for strict conservation. The weaknesses or gaps revealed when assessing the values of the sites and the way they have taken them into consideration, lead us to some suggestions: - to consider the natural values of the sites using the notions of relativity and scales - to better integrate the differences of values given to the sites heritage by scientists, managers and local population - to develop studies on medicinal plants and traditional local strains - to attach more interest to the landscapes. The review would like to point out that bringing on board those other values of social perception, cultural heritage or landscape not only enriches the technical analysis but also helps liaise with the local communities.
4.5. LIMITS AND ZONING "Zoning defines what can and cannot occur in different areas of the park in terms of natural resources management, cultural resources management, human use and benefit, visitor use and experience, access, facilities and park development, maintenance and operations. Through management zoning the limits of acceptable use and development in the park are established." (Young and Young, 1993 in "Guidelines for management planning of Protected Areas", Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 10, 2003). The definition of the zoning is a fundamental act of the team in charge of the management plan. The project is directly related to a space or a territory: every activity has to be geographically situated. The management plan will remain a philosophical document if there is no territorial application. But, to be very clear, the reference to the global limits is MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 32 of 107
insufficient. The actions to be developed and the authorised activities need to organise the area according to the general and particular objectives defined in the management plan. This leads to delimit inside the boundaries of the protected site as well as smaller areas where the access, the conservation activities, the sustainable development actions, the tourist facilities…can be different, for ecological, anthropological, or strategic reasons. The zoning must include four steps. The first one is the definition of the division of the territory in relation to the objectives and the related actions (conservation, traditional uses, recreation, research…). The second one is the definition of the technical and regulatory means that are necessary for giving reality to the zoning (limited accesses, signposting, visitor centres, hunting rights, architectural rules…). The third one is to verify if the global zoning is coherent in terms of space (strict nature reserve protected by a buffer zone, easy access to the traditional uses territory…). The fourth one is the production of a complete document including the definition of the objectives per zone, the definition of the legal framework inside each of the zones, and a precise map of the limits of the zoning (core areas, buffer zones, transition zones, cooperation zones…). That map will be the document of reference for the team for preparing and setting up the actions. It will be also the reference document for every future discussions and disputes about the policy led in the area or the rights existing according to the area. The example from the Cevennes National Park could be useful as an illustration (graph 2 below).
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 33 of 107
Core area Buffer zone Limit of buffer zone Limit of transition zone Limit of national park (peripheral zone)
E ER M R RA T TA TU
Equipment for education Research Area Equipment for monitoring Equipment for research Rehabilitation Area Equipment for Tourism Transition Area Traditional Use Area
Graph 2 – Cevennes National Park zoning system From this, we understand that the zoning is the meeting point between the geographical, ecological and human features of the area and the programme contained within the management plan. For each protected area, one has to think and define the particular zoning scheme. But, for every protected area, one will have to set up a spatial organisation that allows a gradual and harmonious evolution from the "banal" territory to the exceptional one. "It is possible to identify several common types of zones used in the more strictly protected categories of protected areas (IUCN categories I to IV): -
special and/unique values zone (historic sites, wetlands, key marine area…) primitive/wilderness zone (natural processes dominate) limited development zone ( some recreational uses) intensive development/services zone (to accommodate with roads, hotels…) zoning for traditional and indigenous users (to provide them basic amenities)
Within protected landscapes and multiple use areas (IUCN categories V and VI), it is more likely that zoning will need to be employed to accommodate the varying economic, cultural and resource uses that occur. Zoning in category V areas will normally be achieved using land use plans reflecting geographically based policies for different parts of the landscape or seascape…Zoning is a fundamental planning tool for multiple use category VI protected areas. Zoning sets the boundaries for activities permitted within the protected area and as such determines the different pattern of usage."(adapted from "Guidelines for management planning of P.As.", IUCN, 2003, op. cit.).
4.5.1. MWC sites and zoning All the reference documents and managers of MWC protected areas stress on the importance of the zoning. This has been taken into account in the management plans of the MWC sites but with some differences that it could be of interest to analyse. The global limits of each of these sites constitute, of course, the first element of the zoning system. If we certainly don’t have in mind to propose changes in the sites limits, we however suggest here a short analysis of the kind of limits chosen. The "geographical limits" correspond to limits defined with lines drawn geometrically from one point to another. The "ecological limits" correspond to limits defined mainly with natural features (rivers,
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 34 of 107
ecological units, mountains…). The “administrative limits” correspond to limits defined by the local, regional, national, international boundaries or by highways, national roads, railways… The situation of the MWC sites is as follow: -
sites with geographical limits: 4/12 sites with ecological limits: 1/12 sites with administrative limits: 0/12 sites with ecological and administrative limits: 7/12
We can deduce some information from this. None of the sites is based on totally administrative limits. The natural limits have been totally (or partially) considered. It is very important for an efficient management that the limits of the protected area stick, as closely as possible, with the geography/ecology of the territory. They will also have to face a lot of different administrations related to the sites. A large majority has established mixed limits (ecological/administrative) which is a normal compromise corresponding to field realities. The more difficult situation (even if it is a facility for setting up the post signs in the field) is certainly for the sites having just a geographical limit. The teams will have to look carefully to the consequences of stopping or extending their actions within similar areas inside and outside the protected sites. After this first approach of the general characters of the sites boundaries, we can move to the analysis of the zoning itself. We have looked at the management plans to know if there is a proposal of zoning organisation (core area, buffer zone, transition zone,…), a general definition of the objectives of each of these zones (a core area is dedicated to…), a particular definition of the zones defined in the site (core area n°1 is created for and the allowed activities are…). The situation of the MWC sites is as follow: -
existence of a zoning: 12/12 definition of general objectives /type of zone: 12/12 definition of objectives/precise zones: 12/12 cartography of the zoning: 5/12
We can deduce from this simple analysis that every site has defined a zoning (of course, when entering in the detailed documents we could find differences of precision and of scale). This is very important for the present and future development of the management plans and is certainly the result of the emphasis that was given to the zoning within the MWC Guidelines (annexe 2, 3.2). We are on the contrary very deceived to note that less than a half of the sites have included a map of the zoning. It was not mentioned as an "obligatory document" in the MWC Guidelines but it is astonishing to discover what can be considered as a gap. We stress here on the necessity of mapping the zones and, if not done since the publication of the management plans, to produce it as soon as possible.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 35 of 107
4.5.2. The buffer zone in question In their management plans, every site has referred to the concepts of core areas and of buffer zones. If the definition of the core areas does not call to debate, the buffer zone appears to be something more difficult. The international programmes are all using the buffer zone concept when they are defining the zoning organization. According to the definition of the Biosphere Reserves (MAB/Unesco),"…a clearly identified buffer zone which usually surrounds or adjoins the core areas and is used for cooperative activities compatible with sound ecological practices, including environmental education, recreation, ecotourism, and applied and basic research."18 The World Heritage Convention adds an important idea: "a buffer zone is an area surrounding the nominated property which has complementary legal and/or customary restrictions placed on its use and development to give an added layer of protection to the property. This should include the immediate setting of the nominated property, important views and other areas or attributes that are functionally important as a support to the property and its protection"19 In general, the MWC management plans give the feeling that the buffer zones (even if every site refers to them) are considered as something of secondary importance or as something that could be defined in the future. We do really insist on the fact that it is both important to define a core with its buffer zone. Separating the definition in two disconnected approaches could be the source of difficulties to come. The first one is related to the setting up of the actions of the management plan: the non definition or the insufficient definition of the buffer zone will make the operations in the core area itself difficult (question of coherence). The second one is related to the opinion of the local population: it is always dangerous to come back to negotiations after the production of a reference document (that could appear like a trap). The teams of the MWC sites have to focus on that question in the very next moment. We think that it is not necessary to follow indications given in some document for the size of the buffer zone (many management plans. have opened discussions on this topic). Some proposals seem to be very theoretical: what is the efficiency of a buffer zone of 30 metres around the core area? The definition of the perimeter of the buffer zone is not a question of square metres but of interest of the heritage taken into account within this zone, of the coherence between the core area and the buffer zone, of the improvement of the global protection of the site offered by the addition of a buffer zone. The coherence between the two zones refers also to other important questions yet considered in this report: the relations with the territory outside of the site and the necessity to look outside the boundaries for including the neighbouring ecosystems as far as possible. The challenge is not to include everything but to have the best statement of the functioning of the site itself. To the question asked by the managers of the sites concerning the conservation of some outstanding heritage that could be found in a large buffer zone, we remind them that it is always possible to create cluster areas or to protect directly the object of heritage value (nomination as a national monument for example).
18 19
The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves, MAB Unesco, 1995 Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention, Unesco WHC 05/2, 2005
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 36 of 107
4.5.3. Conclusion The question of the limits must be regarded with high interest by the teams for the reasons given before. We have also to stress on the fact that some sites have not, at this moment, received a definitive status of protection nor have a status directly related to nature conservation (forests managed by the State for instance). Consequently, the limits will have to be confirmed or slightly changed in the occasion of the declaration of the protection status. The definition of the buffer zones is certainly a field of work for a large majority of sites. This will include the definition of the objectives and the related cartography. In terms of definition, one can underline that the buffer zone represents the territories of the sites where it is possible to develop actions in the fields of sustainable development. The importance of implementing, in a short period, actions that address both conservation and development objectives and actions that would be readable by local communities, does not need to be demonstrated. Buffer zones are often the best places to do that. We suggest that, if the "Guidelines for the production of management plans for MWC project sites" have to be used by other sites in a next step, it would be important, in a new version of these guidelines, to detail a little the chapter 3.2 devoted to the zoning (as it is for the chapter 3.3 related to "projects or programmes".
4.6. ECOTOURISM The concept of ecotourism seems to address all of the concerns of the managers of protected areas: it makes it possible to preserve the site, educate and organize the populations, create or recreate a dynamics of economic and social development in often disinherited areas, structure an area or a zone.... The list of expected outcomes from ecotourism is long and the awaited results of the implementation of such programs are tempting. Ecotourism developed in the stride of the environmental movement which appeared at the beginning of the 1970s. Budowski is generally quoted as the pioneer concerning the concept of ecotourism20. The first definitions of ecotourism insisted on a required proximity of the tourists with nature. The more recent definitions rather try to integrate a variety of principles associated with the concept of sustainable development. There are multiple definitions of ecotourism, the main ones emanate from The International Ecotourism Society in 1990, the World Conservation Union in 1996, UNEP, and the World Tourism Organization. Here are the common main principles: •
The destination is generally a non-polluted natural site and must present a strong attraction through its biodiversity
20
"Tourism and Environmental Conservation: Conflict, Coexistence, or Symbiosis?" in Environmental Conservation, 3 (1): 27-31, 1976-
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 37 of 107
• • •
Ecotourism must enhance the local economy and the specificity of the place : it must include the local communities in its planning, its development and its exploitation and contributes to their well-being It must contribute to the environmental protection and, more generally, promote the conservation of the natural and cultural heritage The eco-tourist stays often contain educational components and propose to the visitors an interpretation of what he sees and does
In summary, these definitions bring to consider three dimensions of the concept: • • •
Ecotourism is a tourism that focuses on nature ; It has an educational component ; It expresses a need for sustainability.
4.6.1. Particularities of the Mediterranean sites The biological patrimonial values of the Mediterranean coastal natural areas would be visually common (few strong images, no exoticism, no large species). On the other hand, the number of naturalists attracted mainly by bird-watching is not sufficient for the establishment of a prosperous and durable ecotourism activity. The show-case of the Mediterranean natural sites would be essentially the landscape but also the culture. This heritage is exceptional both in the field of archaeology as well as in the field of traditions. As a result, the attraction of the Mediterranean coastal sites for ecotourism must seem to be fairly dedicated to a) the landscapes, b) the archaeological and traditional heritage, and c) particular ecological aspects for specialized nature tours (e.g. bird watchers, turtle lovers).
4.6.2. Ecotourism in the MWC management plans As in many management plans drafted for other sites in the Mediterranean region and in the world, ecotourism systematically appears as a key activity in the management plans of MWC sites. Consequently, the question is not to stress on the interest and importance of the development of ecotourism in the protected areas, but more to be sure that the understanding of the concept is correct (ecotourism is not just the addition of two words, "ecology" and "tourism").Within the questionnaire proposed to the sites managers, there is quite important variation in the definition of ecotourism. For some of them, it is just the fact of giving to the visitors the opportunity of "experiencing wildlife": this could be just named "nature tourism". For some others, they find ecotourism as an appropriate "tool for a sustainable development", which is correct but incomplete. It seems that the teams have not considered how the ecotourism is in the very heart of their global
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 38 of 107
preoccupations. The ecotourism is the focal point between conservation and interpretation, nature and culture, local and global economy. The proposed ecotourism programmes of the management plans implicitly or explicitly adopted the general objectives of ecotourism. However, the reader finds it difficult, at times, to understand the choices that were made for the development of ecotourism. The following should be noted: The teams in charge of the development of the management plans did not benefit from a sufficient assistance to cover the subject "ecotourism" as a whole, from the diagnosis until the action plan The evaluation of the sites allows neither the clear identification of possible attractions being able to be developed nor their localization. The various chapters devoted to the bio-ecological values, the landscapes, and the cultural heritage in the diagnosis studies, do not seem to emphasize the values which can present an interest from an ecotourism point of view. Even the proposed action programs that appear most rationally elaborated do not seem to be based on the results of the diagnosis studies but on "feelings". The assessment of the predispositions of the site and its adjacent territory to a finality of development of ecotourism (infrastructures, facilities, access, resources and human capacities, legislative and institutional aspects) was not made. Constraints in terms of accessibility and infrastructure can be huge for some of the sites. There was no assessment of the immaterial culture (see also 4.4.2). This heritage represents an undeniable wealth integrating millennial links of the local communities with nature, land, and particular techniques and know-how inherited from the rich civilizations that marked the Mediterranean region. The context of tourism and ecotourism particular in the site/country/region is summarily presented in all management plans. Ecotourism action plans: for two sites, the programs are very detailed and complete and reflect a clear vision of the objectives and the outcomes. For these sites, the challenge will be to search and to mobilize the funds necessary for the implementation of the various projects. The review team took note of some promising realizations among the activities recommended in the management plans : trainings for future ecoguides, bed and breakfast, marketing of vegetable products, promotion of local gastronomy or handicrafts … Signposting is foreseen in each of the sites. Two levels are generally mentioned: the first one is related to the definition of the limits of the protected area and of its zoning; the second one is related to public information (points of interests, points of recreation, footpaths…In some sites, in relation with the development of the ecotourism programs, projects of rehabilitation and development of the archaeological vestige, construction of visitor centres, paths and bird watching hides...are also included in the management plans. If some ecotourism activities (bird watching tours, sea kayaking) or enabling activities (bed & breakfast, eco-guide training) have been initiated, the review found that there
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 39 of 107
was little information in the plans to inform of the economic viability of the initiatives and o ecological and social impacts. Fr six sites, the ecotourism programs only define operational objectives, proposing additional studies and the establishment thereafter of a more precise action plan. This seems wise. The management plans do no provide for any zoning or project of zoning for ecotourism. The management plans do not envisage incentive measures which can encourage good practices (labels, certifications...).
Bird watching in Aammiq, Lebanon
4.6.3. From planning to implementation The success of ecotourism in a site, an area or a country can only be the result of a long-term collective work and a synergistic effort of many actors determined to set up an innovative concept. It is therefore important to actively associate the various actors to this dynamics through formal conventions or charters. Also, it should not be forgotten that ecotourism is a form of tourism, i.e. a business venture. The private sector, the Ministry of Tourism, and investors must be brought in. In the questionnaire, 50 % recognized that economic interest would be the main reason for commitment from local partners. Ecotourism would then seem a good starting point.
4.6.4. Conclusions: Specific recommendations
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 40 of 107
In addition to reference to the excellent guidelines on ‘ecotourism in protected area’21, the review would like to suggest: • • • •
to enhance local expertise in ecotourism through an effective technical support and adequate training programs. to complete the diagnosis by the significant elements for ecotourism, in particular to consider the cultural and landscape values, and to identify the constraints and opportunities for ecotourism. to enhance the involvement of local communities in the identification of ecotourism potentials and in the implementation of the initiatives (reception, guiding…), ensuring that these truly benefit the local communities To carry out feasibility study for the proposed activities.
4.7. FINANCING THE MANAGEMENT PLANS 4.7.1. Lessons from the MWC management plans If we look at the chapters of the management plans where the financial questions are approached, we are a little bit astonished and deceived. We were sure that the MWC sites could not escape from the classical rules of the establishment of a budget: evaluate both the outgoings and the incomings. But every one of the management plans that we have reviewed seemed to have overlooked the difficult question of imagining where the money can come from. One should however note that two of the management plans (in semi-final forms today) will shortly be equipped with a business plan. The review did not have the business plans in hand at the time of writing but note that associating a business plan to the management plan seemed a most sensible and promising initiative. A short analysis of the management plan documents gives the following indications: - assessment of expenditures: 12 sites / 12 sites - assessment of expenditures per year: 3 sites / 12 sites - assessment of financial incomings: 0 site / 12 sites - assessment of self-generated incomings: 0 site / 12 sites - assessment of the potential financial sources: 0 site / 12 sites - assessment of economic benefits of the plans: 3 sites / 12 sites The above is quite clear: the management plans have not, in their large majority, developed a comprehensive approach for the financial issue. Certainly, the management plan can be considered a framework document and not a contractual paper, and thus it can be assumed that financial information may not have to be included. If we can agree on this, we must also stress on the fact that a plan without an assessment of the potential sources of funding could be considered as unrealistic and risky. Unrealistic because the team is adding to the difficulties of laying out proposed expenditures, the absence of information about the availability of financial support for these activities. One could say it is very easy to propose actions with estimated costing and wait for the customers! Dangerous because the 21
“Sustainable Tourism in Protected Areas: guidelines for planning and management", Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series N°8, IUCN, 2002
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 41 of 107
stakeholders and the local population that the team has worked with in a participative approach could be very deceived. They are waiting for the results of the process in which they have been involved: the impossibility of launching some part of the plan could become the recognition of a failure. An assessment of the potential or available funding sources would give an explanation of how the agenda will work. On the other hand, the MWC guidelines offer few reference and suggestion to that effect: only two short mentions in points 3.3 and 3.4 of the guidelines. We also tried to look at the budget amounts that were proposed for implementation of the management plans. However, at the time of writing, very few of the management plans contained a budget section. The analysis below should then be considered with care, but can be illustrative. Looking at the available documents, the budgets proposed for implementation of the management plans start from 770,000 USD up to 5,600,000 USD, but they are not easily comparable because they do not relate to the same levels of national economies, the same kinds of territories, the same period of duration, the same types of actions, etc. If we look at the financial effort per year, we have a concentration of the figure between 1,000,000 USD/y and 700,000 USD/y, with two exceptions at the top with 2,800,000 USD/y and at the bottom with 300,000 USD/y. This means that the average foreseen budget for developing each year the actions of a management plan is considered to be something around 800,000 USD. This amount is not very large if compared with the annual budget of a French national park which is 10 times greater. But it would seem perhaps quite ambitious if we consider that the budget has to be totally created (no previous existence), that it must be sustained over 2 to 5 years, that the State budget is usually not in an opulent situation, and that the majority of the countries have more than one site to take care of. If we look at the repartition of the budgets according to the main types of actions of the management plans, the breakdown is as follow: - nature conservation…………………….56,15 % - socio-economic improvement………… 23,34 % - public awareness……………………….. 8,17 % - legal improvement……….…………….12,34 % The budget dedicated to the conservation of the nature is, of course, the main one but the importance of the interventions concerning directly the local community is not insignificant (a proof that a protected area has to look after these two subjects). More astonishing is the place given to the improvement of legislation (a proof that important progresses must be done in this field). That general overview on the use of the budget must be tempered when analysing the respective protected areas. Aamiq (Lebanon) for instance put only 26 % for nature conservation actions against 40 % for socio-economic development. Omayed (Egypt) dedicates only 1 %to the legal improvement while Oued Laabi/Dar Chichou (Tunisia) has inscribed 24 % .This reflects both the differences of situation between nations and the analysis of the local situations made by the site managers.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 42 of 107
4.7.2. Financing: a specific approach for protected areas? "Protected areas have to compete with pressing demands from other sectors, such as education, defence and health. For various reasons, these other demands often prove more effective than protected areas at capturing government revenue. The result is that the proportion of public fund going into investment into protected areas is in decline in many countries" ("Financing Protected Areas", Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series n°5, IUCN, 2000). The issue is, on the whole, something very ordinary and common. A management plan process has the same obligation as a private individual: to adjust priorities and actions to the financial availabilities. Protected areas and their management plans are part of the public policy and are placed, in the political speeches, at the top of the national and international interests. Unfortunately, daily life shows that other issues receive more important attention than environmental considerations. Government and national priority is not for protected areas, which continue to be considered commonly as "a luxury product" if compared to other sectors. The consequences are: the protected areas have to "sell" better than others their "products" (what they are made for), and have to diversify their financial sources. This is not easy! For those who are working for protected areas, the roles that they fulfil are evidently clear. But, for the majority of citizens, protected areas are just, in many cases, just places where animals and plants are preserved: you can't see the wood from the trees! The cultural, social and economic functions of Nature and of protected areas are not obvious to all. These need to be explained and adequate justification has to be given that the protected area is part of the global natural and human ecosystem. The main difficulties for the teams are related to the fact that it is not easy to measure ecological benefits in financial terms and that the team is not, generally, competent in communication matters. As a result, one would have to look carefully in the management plan for what is readable for the public and for the donors in terms of general communication (see in this document section 4.8 on "communication"). This exercise could look marginal but it must be considered as essential for the relations with the financial partners and with local communities. "Identifying a protected area's goods and services, determining who values those goods and services, and measuring these values is not a straightforward process. The goods and services include recreation and tourism, plant and wildlife habitat, genetic resources, water supply, protection against natural disasters, and so on. Many of these goods and services are not traded on commercial markets and therefore have no evident market value. The values of non –market goods and services need to be measured and expressed in monetary terms, where possible, so that they can be weighed on the same scale as commercially traded components."22
22
Economic Values of Protected Areas", Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series n°2, IUCN, 1998
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 43 of 107
The team must consequently evaluate the "economic" benefits of the protected area and of its management plan, drawing from that a communication strategy towards donors and local population. The required budget for conducting actions needs to be prepared not only in terms of expenditures but also in terms of incomings. This must be done as a necessary exercise allowing to evaluate as precisely as possible the reality of the next running phase in the implementation of the plan. It must not be considered as a school exercise disjoined from the realities. "A financial plan is a tool which helps to determine the protected area's funding requirements (including the amount and timing of that funding) and to match income sources with those needs. Financial planning differs from financial budgeting in that it not only identifies how much money is needed for different types of activities, but also locates the most appropriate funding sources for short, medium, and long term needs"23.
4.7.3. From public to internal resources A large majority of the MWC sites can be considered as part of the State administrative policy: that means they would normally receive their budget from the ministry to which they are part. In reality though, the State budget has to face many other issues and the protected areas are not the first of the list of concerns, compared to the other sectors (water supply, health conditions, reducing poverty, education…) Even if a protected area management plan would be one of the national priorities, the question of the origin of the budget would give rise to a difficult debate between ministries. If the protected area is managed by a department of, for instance, the Ministry of Environment, it is likely that this ministry would refuse to pay for the conservation of archaeological remains located within the protected area. We can think that the Ministry of Culture, normally in charge of that heritage, would try to argue that it is under the responsibility of the protected area administration. The importance of a real implication of all the stakeholders is totally demonstrated here: the team in charge of the management plan must be in direct and permanent contact with a committee where every stakeholder is represented. The government allocation, if it is available, is generally insufficient for ensuring the realisations foreseen in a management plan, even the most reasonable one. The necessity of complementing the public budget by other means is obvious in many cases. This refers to the previous remarks concerning the ability of the team to explain the management plan (communication) and to focus on the benefits (economic values). One possibility is to generate internal incomes. Two main difficulties must be stressed here. One is related to the type of "goods and products" that will be on sale. The definition is not so easy for conservation reasons (what to sell, which quantity…) and for quality reasons (which mechanism for maintaining the quality). Second, the definition of who is selling is also an issue: certainly the local communities have to benefit from that policy but they have to be supervised by an administrative entity to avoid problems (overuse of local resources, parallel 23
see op. cit. above : Financing P. As.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 44 of 107
markets…), would have to be skilled in business management. These internal incomes have the real interest of making an economical link with the local products. But it is obvious that it must be considered as a complement to the main resources of the protected areas (public income by the State and the local authorities, private income by donors). One other possibility is to receive help from private or outside sponsors. Once more the communication matters are of first importance because they are like appetizers for donors and, generally, the necessary counterpart to their help. The main difficulty for the team could be to accept financial support from a sponsor that is, in other respects, well known as a major polluter…The team in charge of the management plan will certainly find the right way to follow for conciliating nature protection and the necessary means for action. At least, economic instruments should be considered (tax, eco-rent, charge, entry fee…). The main issue is to ensure that the income, or a good share of it, will eventually return to the protected areas. Current examples in the world regrettably seem to show that this kind of income generally goes straight to the Ministry of Finance and rarely contributes to the income of the protected area. Within the MWC project, a good number of the sites do receive (or will receive at the termination of the MWC project) a budget allocation from the ministry or institution in charge – at present, State budget provides a yearly allocation to the Government Appointed Committee in Tyr Nature Reserve in Lebanon, the APAL in Tunisia allocates yearly budgets to the MWC sites. If one considers self generating revenues, there has also been few interesting examples in the MWC sites, albeit too few. In Tyr, Lebanon, proceeds from kiosks rental spaces on the beach are paid back to the municipality of Tyr which in turns allocates a share for the protection of the site. Finally, for external sources of support, one should cite that the MWC project has been generally quite successful in securing small funding support from partner financial agencies (eg. GEF Small Grants in the case of Albania, Egypt, Morocco or Tunisia). Box 4 below gives an example of these efforts at MWC Egypt.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 45 of 107
Efforts in Mobilizing Resources for Management Plans Implementation With the completion of the management plans, it was apparent that implementation of these plans cannot depend solely on the MedWetCoast resources. Consequently, MedWetCoast Egypt is continuously working towards developing partnerships, and securing additional funds. To date, it has succeeded in mobilizing L.E. 11,000,000 from other relevant ministries, through the local management committees, for management operations of a large scope that are only possible through the public sector, including dredging lakes inlets and canals, setting up weirs, and rehabilitation of wells. Additionally, it has succeeded in developing a partnership with the GEF Small Grants Project in implementing management projects that can be undertaken by local NGOs. So far three proposals were accepted to be funded by the GEF small grants steering committee, with more potential collaborations present. Collaborating with national and international agencies that fund NGOs and Government Organizations (GOs), in implementing the management plans, is a challenge that is one of MedWetCoast Egypt’s priorities in 2004. One round table meeting for NGOs Funding Agencies was organized on January 26th, 2004, under the auspice of the Minister of Environment. Interest for collaboration was apparent. Follow up meetings with these agencies, at individual basis is planned in the next phase. A meeting at a larger scale for agencies that fund Government Organizations is also planned for April 2004. Box 4. MWC Egypt in February 2004 MWC newsletter
4.7.4. Conclusion One should realistically consider that the most sizeable financial support will naturally come from State budget through allocation by the ministry/organisation in charge, as per the protected area status of the site. When trying to harvest additional revenues, which should be encouraged, the teams must reflect on how to ensure that some of the proceeds collected actually go towards the protected area. In order to help the teams in charge of the management plans, we suggest referring to guidelines proposed by WCPA/IUCN (see op.cit. "Financing P.As.") or WWF (see reference documents listed in annex 4). In conclusion, we feel that the financial approach as presented in the MWC guidelines and carried out in the management plans is insufficient. The MWC sites must rapidly consider this issue and certainly, after assessing the possible sources of funding, question again the priorities of the actions that are being proposed. The adjustments then proposed in the action plan would be in relation to real funding availability and would have to be explained to the stakeholders and communities.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 46 of 107
4.8. COMMUNICATION FOR PROTECTED AREAS Establishing and maintaining relationship with local populations, visitors, actors, partners and staff are essential in the process of developing and implementing a management plan. These relationships can very quickly worsen and thus compromise the undertaking, while leading to conflicts among and in-between stakeholder groups. Communication is thus a vital component of a management plan process. It allows making lobbying, establishing relations, sharing successes and reaching out to partners. Like other project components, communication activities must be planned, defined with reference to clear objectives and outputs, monitored with clear indicators.
4.8.1. MWC experience The MWC management plan report: a communication tool? The MWC management plans are comprehensive documents, thoroughly elaborated. They were written to be used by the future managers as reference document for implementation of management actions. These documents and their appendices have the advantage of conveying the whole of the diagnosis, the vision for the site and the more or less detailed action plans. They use a precise language and illustrations that are necessary for a better understanding of the plan. In short, in their current configuration, the reports appear as complete technical and scientific manual intended for an informed public of professionals (scientists, protected areas, managers…). However, for a certain number of actors having a direct or indirect involvement in the project, this type of document remains inaccessible, because of its volume and of its language. Work would need to be done to ‘translate’ the management plans into documents that are accessible to the decision makers and to the public – that probably means that several tailored documents would have to be produced, according to the target groups. What proposes the MWC management plans for communication? The management plans include a component for communication and awareness. The objectives of this component would be to a) mobilize a greater number of supporters to the management plan, and b) to modify the perceptions and the behaviour with regard to nature. Other actions were proposed to answer more specific needs centred notably on the promotion of new activities (ecotourism, handicrafts, soil products…). The management plans address in general two categories of target audiences: the people living and working within the areas and the visitors. For the first category, a specific emphasis is put on the actions of partnership with the local associations and NGOs, proposing to train and to involve them in concrete actions. The proposals concerning schools are often related to the publication of school manuals and organised visits. Every site has foreseen to develop specific actions of communication toward the main socio-economic groups (farmers, fishermen…) and policy makers (civil servants, politicians…). For releasing general information on the areas, some have in mind to publish a monthly newsletter or to create TV MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 47 of 107
spots. For the second category, signposting remains the priority (limits of the protected area, information panels…). In all of the management plans, it is foreseen to build information centres that will provide for direct contact with the rangers and the available documents (booklets, leaflets, reviews…). The necessity of these constructions is not questionable but it seems that their setting up is currently foreseen without a general strategy and hierarchy of public information needs. The review noted that, in the implementation of the management plans, some of the MWC teams have worked to identify specific target groups that would be the medium to reaching out to the people. We would like to record the work of Egypt in training religious leaders (see box 5 below) and journalists. Training Course for Religious Leaders Out of the project's desire for grassroot participation, a training course for mosque preachers on "nature conservation in Islam" was held in Burullus protectorate, Egypt, on 20/ 6/ 2004, and was attended by 25 local mosque preachers. The course started off with lectures by renowned environmentalist and Project's Chief Advisor Dr. Mohamed El Kassass, a native of the area. Project Manager Dr. Esam El Badry, Dr. Ahmed Baraneya Professor of Fishery Economics at the Institute of National Planning, Mr. Hussein El Imam Director of Training at the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency EEAA and PAM Fayed El Shamly, were on the panel. The lectures were followed by a workshop in which the trainees worked in groups to develop Friday Prayer speeches (preaching) that addressed environmental issues; namely, conservation of Lake Burullus. The result was astounding, as each of the speeches effectively reflected the environmental concerns of the project in Burullus. A similar seminar that will include more preachers from the area, may be planned soon. Box 5. MWC Egypt in June 2004 MWC newsletter
The "discovery" of the way the nature functions and how the local community is "de facto" engaged in this large process is one of the main positive points of the communication action. The difficulty is sometimes that it opens new behaviours of the local populations without the possibility of assuring a complete understanding of the complex situation of a protected area. Meetings and documents cannot totally reflect that complexity and cannot replace environmental education and training (this needing a lot of time, which is difficult to find during the preparation period). Paradoxically, new interest in environmental questions at local level can lead to drastic positions that are not scientifically controlled. The site team is, therefore, obliged to explain, in fact, what is the notion of "limit of acceptable changes" (which is a quite difficult and questionable concept). This is illustrated by the huge public
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 48 of 107
debate in Albania where a project of thermo power station is foreseen not very far from the Narta lagoon, at the moment of a dramatic energy crisis in the country. The following weaknesses should also be noted: •
networking at the national level and at international level was not addressed. The exchange of experiences between teams and experts of the various sites is very important.
•
raising the awareness and skills of rangers and protected area staff in terms of communicating and welcoming the public almost does not appear in the management plans.
4.8.3. Conclusion As all other components of the projects, the communication element must be built along a coherent strategy that responds to needs and objectives clearly identified. The communication strategy would have to be developed and implemented by a communication specialist. It is a job in itself! The strategy would be built upon a specific diagnosis that analyzes the context, the influence and the interests of the various target groups, the limits and the motivations, in relation to the objectives of the management plan. It will then allow the identification of the various tailored messages, and how these can be brought to the target groups: traditional media, schools, religious forum, etc. We would like to note that this aspect should best be assessed by a communication specialist; the analysis above then simply tries to illustrate some of the main elements that were brought to our attention and wishes to underscore the importance of communication activities within a management planning process.
4.9. MONITORING: A FOCAL ISSUE OF THE MANAGEMENT PLANS The "Guidelines for the production of management plans for MWC project sites" contains a short paragraph on monitoring, and then it refers rather to the term ‘assessment’ and not ‘monitoring’. This document gives the following objective to the assessment: “The aim of short-term assessments is simply to confirm that the site is being managed in compliance with the plan specifications. Major assessments are used to check whether the operational objectives are being correctly fulfilled and that they are still relevant". When we look through the management plans we feel that this prescription has been heard but perhaps not totally understood in all its complexity:
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 49 of 107
-
mention of an evaluation process of the M.P.: 7/12 sites mention of an evaluation process of the impacts of the M.P.: 5/12 sites mention of indicators for the evaluation: 5/12 sites mention of a revision process: 7/12 sites
The monitoring process has not been fully taken into account in the management plans and the object of the assessment seems to be limited to the implementation itself (which is insufficient). To clarify the question, we propose to come back to the six main elements of a management plan which, according to IUCN, can be evaluated: -
where are we now? (context) where do we want to be? (planning) what do we need? (input) how do we go about it? (process) what were the results? (outputs - i.e. the activities carried out or services provided) what did we achieve? (outcomes - i.e. the actual achievements of management)
That analysis is a monitoring programme that would be dedicated not only to the "where do we want to be" and “what do we need” but also (and perhaps more) to the "what did we achieve". Within the management plan, monitoring must not only focus on activities and processes of management, but also address the state of the physical and social environment that it aims to preserve or protect. The monitoring programme will use a set of indicators to assess the progress and effectiveness of the management plan. Those indicators should (in "Evaluating effectiveness: a framework for assessing the management of protected areas", Best practice protected area guidelines series n° 6, IUCN/WCPA, 2000): - have an unambiguous, predictable and verifiable relationship to the attribute being assessed - be sensitive to change in the attribute being assessed - integrate environmental effects over time and space (i.e. reflect enduring change rather than short-term or localised fluctuations in conditions) - reflect changes and processes of significance to management (including biophysical, social, cultural, economic, political and managerial attributes) - reflect changes at spatial and temporal scales of relevance to management - be cost-effective in terms of data collection, analysis and interpretation - be simple to measure and interpret - be able to be collected, analysed and reported on in a timely fashion
4.9.1. Monitoring the management plan implementation process Once established, the management is normally entering the phase of implementation. The actions foreseen within it have to follow the priorities order as well as other parameters
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 50 of 107
(financial availability, local pressures, political requests, natural unforeseen events…). The monitoring would start at the very same moment the implementation is starting. This is a major difficulty for the teams because it looks like a sprinter that will observe him during the sprint to know if he is or not in the world record performance! The issue of monitoring is perhaps more problematic for those of the MWC sites that have chosen to begin with some specific actions (the ‘urgent measures’) that were deemed necessary for strategic reasons. The impact on the local communities will be the first thing to analyse because these actions have been normally engaged for answering some of their concerns. As seen before, a majority of sites have not at all paid sufficient attention to the monitoring of the implementation of the management plan. Some have not opened the chapter. We would stress here the importance of addressing quite rapidly this gap. The monitoring is not a style exercise made for administrative reasons: it is crucial for measuring the progress, identifying the difficulties and the measures that must be undertaken for correcting the next actions. It is a tool that the teams can use for communication purposes to their administration as well as to the local communities. The monitoring programme needs to be established with a set of indicators that are fixed before starting the operations (if not, the value of the indicators is diminished by the tendency of tailor made measures that distort the results). It is very urgent for the sites which have not done so to report the baseline and confirm the necessary indicators.
4.9.2. Monitoring of impacts Less than fifty per cent of the MWC sites have listed indicators that correspond to the actions proposed. They include such things like: irrigation system restored, fresh waters reserve created, full inventory of natural and cultural monuments, number of guided tours…These indicators give important information on the development of the management plan but a poor evaluation of how the action is impacting the territory and the society. For these to be useful, these indicators would have been to be cross-referenced with others, such as enhancement of the crops due to restoration of irrigation system, nesting of new species of water birds related to the creation of a fresh water reserve... Only a very few number of management plans have described very precise indicators giving information on the foreseen impacts. When a management plan proposes to “maintain at least 20% of the marsh wet throughout the dry summer months by 2010 and to verify it by field surveys during dry season”, we are approaching what is needed for measuring the progress of the action within the corresponding objective (i.e. that is “to establish sustainable use derived from the wetland”). But we are still evaluating the direct relations between objectives – actions-results. We have a better monitoring process in comparison with the preceding approach but the potential impacts on nature and on socio-economy are not addressed. In fact, the monitoring of the impacts on the global environment (natural and human) is strongly related to the inventories, the studies and the researches that would have been carried out inside the sites. The inventory of the fishes of a lagoon can be considered as just a
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 51 of 107
scientific action participating in the development of general knowledge. It is also the basis of a fundamental indicator of the state of the lagoon, of its evolution under natural effects, under artificial effects. The inventory constitutes the point of reference for the assessment of the impact of the actions decided in the management plan. If a management plan proposes to restore the grazing lands, the monitoring must not focus only on the observation of the improvement of those lands and of the development of the local breeding. The monitoring will have to assess the impacts on the ecosystem: e.g. the return or not of specific species, the decline or disappearance of species, the overabundance of others… The monitoring of the evolution of the site is possible without an exhaustive study: a choice of indicative species is sufficient to show what the trend is. The monitoring of impacts is very important for understanding the potential capacities of the site to evolve and for evaluating the limits of evolution (and thresholds). Time will remain one of the main constraints for monitoring programmes: some effects on the ecosystem will appear only after a time that often goes beyond the duration of the management plan. This means that a monitoring programme (with precise indicators) must be established as soon as possible: it will allow controlling the performance of the actions not only in terms of realisation but also of environmental impact. At the time of revising the plan and/or preparing the next management plan, the first monitoring reports will help select the appropriate strategy: to pursue, modify or stop the undertaken actions that were initiated within the preceding management plan.
4.9.3. Conclusion The monitoring programme, the definition and use of indicators for assessing both the implementation of the management plans and its impacts on the ecosystems, are fundamental elements of the management plan process. Just like the diagnosis has been the basis of the construction of the management plan, the monitoring is the next floor of the building. The MWC management plans have granted insufficient attention to that topic. In order to help the set up of the monitoring, we suggest referring to the "Best practice protected area guidelines series n°6", WCPA/IUCN, 2000, which contains a lot of information on the evaluation practices. As far as we have been able to assess, monitoring at the sites is generally being carried out in terms of routinely verifying the conditions of the main biological indicators: improvement of the hydrological conditions in the lagoon, improvement of the pastures, number of guided tours in the site, number of nesting animals…Some of the sites have quoted the kind of indicators that would be needed to monitor the implementation of the management plan, others have just mentioned the necessity to monitor the actions. However, for those that have listed indicators, there is no precision on the methodology that they could use. Even when the monitoring methodology has been described, it seems that the actions have begun without having reference data set up: deviating the polluted waters from a lagoon is of course of high importance but how to measure the impact on the water quality, on habitat, on fishing activity if the process of monitoring is not engaged at least some months before the modification of the situation.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 52 of 107
The indicators, if we look at the preceeding remarks, must not only be written but organised (methodology, periodicity, budget, human means…) before the launching of any operation. The indicators have to be based on a scientific approach but must certainly be monitored in the sites by local staffs. The choice of indicators and methodology should take this into account. Similarly, the need for training the local staff in monitoring techniques must be factored into the workplan. The evolution of the site needs a permanent evaluation to facilitate the management plans review.
5. FROM VISION TO REALITY OR IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONCEPTS "Management planning does not end with the production of the plan, important as it might be. Good practice requires that a going monitoring take place to test the effectiveness of the plan. Lessons learnt from monitoring should be used to review the appropriateness of management purposes and policies. This feed back loop may thus lead to adjustments to the original plan to keep it on the right track; or the lessons learnt can be used to develop the next version of the plan. The latter will be the case where plans are legislative documents and not easily amended during their term of currency"24. (Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas, WCPA/IUCN, 2003). The first lesson from this introduction to management planning is very clear: a management plan is a working document that is continuously evolving, in reference to a more or less consistent road map. Since it is based on an iterative process, it must not be considered as a document that would have to be enforced by law: to do so will kill it. The limits of evolution of the management plan are partially defined by reasons that can be found in the preparation process: the diagnosis, the boundaries, the zoning, the monitoring methodology…constitute the frame from which it will be difficult or impossible to move. The difficulties and weaknesses met during the diagnosis and the preparation phase will, of course, have an impact on the implementation process. At the moment of starting the implementation, the team has to evaluate sincerely these difficulties and weaknesses to avoid as much as possible to launch the implementation of an unrealistic plan. The problems (as listed in op.cit. above) can be: • • • • • 24
insufficient attention given to budgetary questions (financial information not included or bearing very little relation to the funds likely to be available) unrealistic assumptions made about the management capacity of the organization poorly formulated objectives vital details (such as the scope of the problems to be addressed) deferred for further study, although this may be difficult to avoid failure to allocate responsibilities for implementing the plan or part of the plan
Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas, WCPA/IUCN, 2003 p.4/5
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 53 of 107
• • • • •
vague and unspecific commitments that do not provide a basis for on-the-ground action undue emphasis on certain aspects of management, such as tourism or recreation, which may divert resources away from other important aspects financial, managerial or even political instability failure to set out clear imperatives and priorities impractical management plans that cannot be used as a basis for action.
If preparing a management plan is a difficult affair, implementing it is a quite more difficult one. We would like to review the main difficulties that the teams risk to face.
5.1. DIFFICULTIES THAT CAN BE MET WHEN IMPLEMENTING THE MANAGEMENT PLAN 5.1.1. The necessity of ubiquity in the time dimension Those working to implement management plans need to master this incredible knack. The team must refer and use every day the lessons and knowledge directly acquired from the diagnosis and study phase (lessons from the past). Implementation on the other hand is a task that deals with the daily life of natural and human communities (action at present time). But, as demonstrated before, there is no good work without a constant relation to the next step and the possible threats and trends (looking to the future). This could seem quite obvious but everyone knows that day-to-day actions tend to dictate the activities of administrations and organizations. One must then resist the daily pressure and make every effort to reach out both to the past and to the future. Quite a challenging gymnastic figure!
5.1.2. The challenge of evolution with respect to the original philosophy A number of parameters try to disrupt the clever organization of the management plan. We can mention some of them: • • • • •
pressures from local communities asking to put an emphasis on actions having a real direct impact on their life pressures from Nature showing dramatic changes needing urgent interventions the real financial availability at the very moment of intervening for on-theground actions the availability of the scientific studies to help reach the right decision at the right moment (inventories, studies related to management) the evolution of regional, national and international contexts between the time of preparation of the management plan and the time of implementation.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 54 of 107
5.1.3. The definition of the limits of acceptable changes "The limits of acceptable changes" is a useful and widely used concept for determining to what extent changes can be tolerated. It can be applied to the operational objectives or to the long-term ones (e.g. for wetlands, maximum/minimum water levels, maximum/minimum plant cover…). If the limits are exceeded, the corrective measures have to be taken immediately. The acceptable limits of change must take into account the sustainable yield of natural resources, so as to be able, for example, to determine the quantities that can be harvested or the fish catch. Continuous monitoring is essential for this process and is of great importance. It is the place where the team has to choose what could be the benefits and the losses for the protected area, by accepting a compromise in the implementation of the management plan. The margin to be negotiated between the decided line (management plan) and the field necessity is very small. The team must find the right arrangement for taking into account the changes necessitated by the situation but without selling its soul to the devil. Consequently, it means also a good communication effort for explaining why this change has been accepted and why this next one is not possible.
5.1.4. The implacable realities of implementing actions Everybody from team to stakeholders and including the local population has heard of an organizational document named "management plan" but nobody shows anything that could be it, until, some day eventually, an amount of written paper. Therefore, it could be considered as an invisible object for the local community, until it will be implemented: shared ideas would be nothing without concrete actions. The real birthday of the management plan is the addition of actions that are progressively implementing, thereby illustrating the steps that the plan is taking us through to reach its final aims. But this is also the moment of truth where the invisible object is turning into a tangible subject. Everybody, from the fisherman to the Minister, can then observe what is done on the ground and ask for explanations. The main issues that the team must face are: • •
to replace speeches and texts by visible actions, knowing that in the specific field of environmental and sustainable policies, results are not often obtained in the short term to organize, manage, realize or make realize, and monitor and evaluate actions in as much different fields as: editing a booklet, leading meetings with local communities, controlling draining works, preparing the next hunting decree, pursuing the amphibians inventory… a versatile amount of skills!
5.2. SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR HELPING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 55 of 107
• •
• • •
•
The permanent travel between yesterday, today and tomorrow requests for the team a real capacity of adaptation and of reflection, permitting to draw lessons from the past as well as to imagine the future. The eventually necessary reorganization of the priorities (at the moment and during implementation) must be considered as a complete process where the team has to pay attention to every consequences of that reorganization (attention to logical, financial, and technical, urgency, organization questions). The eventually necessary reorganization of the priorities must also be evaluated in terms of communication impact on stakeholders that could considerer it as positive or negative. The eventually necessary reorganization of the priorities must also be evaluated in terms of conservation (the delay of an action concerning conservation can make the action impossible some months later). The incredible variety of actions that the team is confronted with has serious consequences for recruiting staff : everyone needs to be pluridisciplinary in his/her professional background but perhaps more in his/her mind (to be able to look around and to understand things outside his/her personal sphere of knowledge and expertise). The implementation of the management plan will be successful (even with problems and mistakes) if the relationship with local populations is maintained: the reciprocal confidence between the team and the communities that will enable all to make progress towards sustainable development and conservation is related to their capacities for daily dialogue.
5.3. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR IMPLEMENTATION In order to help to make a synthesis of what remains a quite difficult process, we suggest referring to the following text extracted from "Guidelines for Management Planning of Protected Areas" (IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 10, 2003): "Successful management planning will be characterised by these features: • • • •
•
It is a process, not an event i.e. it does not end with the production of a plan, but continues through its implementation and beyond. It is concerned with the future: it identifies concerns and future alternative courses of action, and examines the evolving chains of causes and effects likely to result from current decisions. It provides a mechanism for thinking about threats and opportunities and other difficult issues, solving problems and promoting discussion between involved parties. It is systematic: most planning exercises work through a pre-determined sequence of steps that give structure to the process and encourage a logical approach. A systematic approach helps to ensure that decisions are based on knowledge and analysis of the subject and its context, and helps others to understand the rationale for proposed actions. It also involves value judgements. Management planning can be thought of as a "process which embraces the identification of what a [protected area] is and what
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 56 of 107
•
•
it should become and how to maintain or attain that desired condition in the face of changing internal and external conditions"25. The use of the word "should" implies that value judgements help determine what "should be", as well as "what is". Planning for protected areas is thus centred not only on analysis of the objective condition of the natural resource, but also on people and their opinions. It takes a "holistic" view. The planning process can, if carried out openly and inclusively, take into consideration a very wide range of issues, views and opinions. When applied to a particular area, it should be able to include all processes and issues arising within it, as well as those arising outside its boundaries. How integrated or "holistic" the process is will depend, however, on how the process is carried out, who is involved and how the final decisions are made. It is a continuous process: it is never static; it must adjust to changing conditions and goals".
The implementation of the management plans is not only a question of technique or science, it is also a question of administration and finance. For one, the existence of a permanent administrative system and of consistent annual budget is a sound necessity. The recruitment of the team is related to the financing availabilities but will necessarily include, partially or totally, the members of the project team project (their experience is one of the more important thing to value). The other part of the administrative system is related to the choice of the type of management organisations that would need to be set up, whether under the responsibility of a public administrations or a semi-private organisation. For most of the MWC sites, it is clearly foreseen that the site management should be under the full control of a public administration (Ministry of Environment for example) because the administration of these territories is of the resort of the State; as such the management unit is a detached public entity staffed with public servants. In one case, the selected arrangements involve setting up a mixed management committee that includes representatives of the State but also of the municipality and of several interest groups. The committee then recruits the site manager and the staff. In another yet, the option of setting up a private foundation is being explored. In all cases, the protected area management unit, if not composed entirely of experts from the MWC project, would probably need to be exposed to the practices of protected area management. MWC Albania just organised a study tour for the local team to nearby Croatian protected areas; MWC Tunisia and Morocco have scheduled a few such visits to French protected areas and sites. The question of the board of administration represents another place of debate in the MWC sites. Its composition is quite difficult to establish as it should represent every aspects of the concerned territory (which is of course impossible for reasons of the reasonable number of members of the board). Many site managers recognise the importance of the participation of the local population in the board (farmers, fishermen, associations, NGOs, local scholars…) but they hesitate to propose this to be inscribed in the decree of creation of the board (what could be the weight of the political class in front of the weight of the civil society). The actual revision of the French Law for National Parks proposes the following repartition: 30% of public administration representatives, 40% of elected peoples, 30% of "qualified" peoples. It is clear then that the move here is towards greater responsibility to the local communities and 25
"Park Management Planning: a guide to the writing of management plans", Johnstone Centres of Parks and Recreation, Australia, Lipscombe, 1987
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 57 of 107
away from public administration (even though we are here in "national parks"). We support totally this point of view which gives a real possibility of actions in dialogue with the local population. Finally, perhaps the most difficult issue may be how to translate the management plan proposed actions into ‘feasible actions’. One should cite here the approach of MWC Tunisia which opted to include a third section in the management plan that consists in a package of tender documents or TORs for each of the proposed actions. The team then is only to issue and follow up on the tenders (mind you, not an easy task, considering the complexity of the tender procedures). On the other hand, if one looks at the long list of proposed actions in the management plans and the likely constraints in financial availability, it would seem that a first task must be to prioritise the actions. Some of the teams have started that process. The difficulty of moving from the situation of "project" to the status of "real" protected area should be reviewed and the aspects above carefully reviewed.
6. PREPARING THE NEXT MANAGEMENT PLANS It could be paradoxical to take an interest in the next management plan, at a time when managers have not yet finished editing a first one or are just beginning to carry out the first management plan actions. In fact, there is no paradox if we consider the complete process of a management plan as an iterative and continuous one. As for any life cycle, the day of birth of a management plan is opening the way to its planned end allowing the construction of a new one, at the same time identical and different. The components of the first management plan have to be evaluated for themselves (as the result of a work) as well as for the preparation of the next one. Each of the constitutive elements of the management plan (diagnosis, causal chain analysis, zoning, actions, priorities…) is yet committing the following one, even if some change is possible (or necessary). The second management plan cannot be prepared without the continuity that will provide effectiveness and success. These successful results we are looking for depend, consequently, of three aspects: first, the careful and strong construction of the first management plan; second, the honest analysis of the previous management plan; and, third, the capacity to use the first management plan and its analysis to imagine a second management plan. By "honest analysis", we understand that strengths and weaknesses have to be taken into account impartially. This necessary impartiality will follow from the definition of evaluation indicators defined at the beginning of the process (not of course, at the very moment of the assessment!). Some are thinking that after the experience of the preparation of a first management plan, the second one will be easier: they are right if they have in mind to copy and paste the original! Also, it is true that the accumulation of knowledge resulting from the preparation of the first management plan (diagnosis, methodology, team, indicators, budget evaluation, participation approach…) constitute an incomparable experience, but not totally sufficient for making the second management plan just a formality.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 58 of 107
The main difficulties seem to lie in: •
•
•
The different approach between management plan 1 and management plan 2. The first one was largely ruled by imagination, conceived as a tool for finding solutions to pressures and threats; the second one will have to consider the results of management plan 1 and consequently to force its freedom of thinking within the framework of the results of the first management plan. The “sincere evaluation” of the first management plan must highlight the mistakes and shortcomings existing in the plan. This is not easy for all those who have done their best to set up a management plan ; it is also probably not the good time as the manager and the team have to explain the situation to politicians and the local population, trying to convince them to follow up with a second plan. The result of the first management plan are generally few for technical reasons (gap between decision to implement the plan and availability of means, insufficient staff in number and qualification, ultimate oppositions at the moment of starting real field actions…) as well as for lack of time for developing and finishing actions (the 2nd management plan must usually be prepared some 2 years before the end of the 1st one).
After these general considerations on the necessity to anticipate the second management plan as soon as possible during the first management plan process, we would propose some elements that could help to prepare this crucial 2nd management plan. The length of the MWC management plans is variable, depending of the country. The shortest ones have duration of 3 years, the longest reaching 5 years. This issue is always a debate in the protected areas. If a 5-year management plan is certainly the right length to measure the progresses and the impacts, in that case it is necessary to have a mid term review (after 2-3 years). This seems important to follow the evolution of the management plan in particular if it is the first one. A lot of things have to be launched and often without any local (and sometimes national) references: the risk is too high to work in the dark. The MWC sites have not yet started preparing their second management plan but they must be conscious that the time of doing so will arrive sooner than they can imagine. The preparation time for a next management plan is generally considered to be of around 2 years. It seems a little bit ridiculous to speak of a new plan when the first one is far to be finished, but it needs a lot of time (evaluation of the first results, evaluation of the next projects, discussions with the stakeholders, financial availability…). The other great difficulty for the MWC sites will be the administrative and financial changes: the first management plans have been done in majority inside the MWC project, this meaning international help (technical, scientific, financial). The importance of having settled all the administrative questions before the end of the MWC project has not to be demonstrated. The launching of a second management plan will depend of these issues.
6.1. EVALUATION OF THE FIRST MANAGEMENT PLAN TO HELP THE PREPARATION OF A SECOND ONE Jim W. Thornsell (IUCN) defines evaluation in a protected area management context as "the process of making reasonable judgements about programme effort, effectiveness, efficiency MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 59 of 107
and adequacy with the objective of using these judgements to improve the effectiveness of management"26. Main fields of analysis that must be emphasized include: • • •
• •
Analysis of the implementation rate - emphasize the elements that have led to that rate (bad evaluation of timing, bad evaluation of technical difficulties, unforeseen political or popular opposition, financial breaks…) Analysis of the changes in the priorities between T0 and T1 - which factors have dictated that change (external pressures, need for emergency conservation measures, particular choices decided by the team…) Analysis of the financial situation, the disbursements and revenues raised – one should be careful that an under-consumption can be considered as an indicator of bad estimates and thus bad financial management, but an over-consumption would generally not help establish a climate of confidence with the financial partners Analysis of the changes in the environmental and socio-economic parameters (natural environment, flora, fauna, socio-economical features…) and of the pressures that are exerted thereon Analysis of the changes in the regional, national and international contexts – these external factors can greatly influence individual and collective behaviours (meat prices, embargoes, political instability, large-scale development, tourist flow…).
In order to help the preparation of evaluation/assessment of the management plans, it is suggested to refer to the Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 6, IUCN, 2000: "Evaluating effectiveness, a framework for assessing the Management of Protected Areas".
6.2. THE RISKS TO CONTROL • • • • •
the ‘copy and paste’ technique as a useful tool between management plan 1 and management plan 2; a revolutionary management plan 2 without coherence with management plan 1; following up on actions that would have been stopped at the end of management plan 1 but that are easy to conduct and / or have the favours of the public; insufficient number of concrete actions that the local population can easily read and understand (a scientific inventory, for example, is a fundamental necessity but that does not concern directly the local community) the "distance" that could occur between the team and the population after the first participative phase.
6.3. SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF THE M.P.
26
"Evaluating effective management in protected areas: an application to Arusha N.P., Tanzania" in "World National Parks Congress, Bali, IUCN/WCPA, 1982
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 60 of 107
In order to help the preparation of evaluation/assessment of the management plans, it is suggested to refer to the Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series n° 6, IUCN, 2000: "Evaluating effectiveness, a framework for assessing the Management of Protected Areas". The following text is extracted from that document and gives indications on how to process: "The following general guidelines are suggested as a basis for assessment systems: • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
Assessment systems should aim to be participatory at all stages of the process and should seek to involve all relevant organisations and individuals that may have a genuine and demonstrated interest in the management and/or use of a site. Assessment should be based upon a well-founded, transparent and comprehensible system. The findings should be readily accessible to all interested parties in a way that is appropriate to their needs. The management objectives and the criteria for judging management performance must be clearly defined and understood by the managers and assessors. Assessments of management effectiveness should focus on the most important issues – including threats and opportunities – affecting, or potentially affecting, the achievement of management objectives. Consideration of a range of factors (context, design, inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes) can all contribute to an assessment system. Performance indicators should relate to social, environmental and management issues, including the relationship between the protected area and its surroundings. Limitations of the evaluation should be clearly identified in the assessment report. The system should be capable of showing change over time through periodic assessments. In reporting on assessment, strengths and weaknesses should be identified and issues should be divided between those that are within and outside the manager's control. Assessment should allow prioritisation of conservation effort. Clear recommendations for improving management performance should be included in all assessments. Management processes should ensure that the findings and recommendations of evaluation feed back into - on-going decision making so as to improve management performance. The methodology for evaluation should be progressively verified and refined as necessary. Assessments should be based on sound and appropriate environmental and social science. Assessment is likely to include both quantitative and qualitative information that should be supported by measurement or other evidence."
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 61 of 107
7. CONCLUSION The management plans peer review has given the possibility to sites managers and MWC project teams to look critically at what they are doing and where they are in the site planning process. This could seem a normal and easy exercise but everyone involved in such a process knows that, in the reality, there is always some more important, more urgent work to do. The other difficulty is to observe the work under development and implementation with the required objectivity when under pressure. At a very general level, we can say that the MWC project has had a positive effect in the fields of conservation and sustainable development at sites. Six countries and fourteen sites have received and used a methodology for preparing and implementing a management plan. This constitutes a major achievement, that helps secure the future of the sites: the ideas have been discussed locally, the actions have been organised logically, and the successes and failures would be analysed scientifically. The process has been effective in building up a group of competent people. The reinforcement of the human capacities constitutes an undeniable asset of the project. Like in a great number of countries in the world, the Mediterranean region lacks a sufficiently trained staff to prepare management plans for protected areas. In countries where protected areas have been managed for a long time with management plans, the absence or the weakness of training in these matters is partially compensated by the professional experience of the staff yet in activity. Where there is no real "history" of site management planning process, there is a complete deficit. The new wealth in competent staff must be kept carefully and, above all, valorised. This could be done by information and involvement of students during the studies led by the universities in the territories of the sites. Another very positive global result that the MWC project would have contributed to is the fact that some countries have decided to use the MWC management plans methodology for other national protected areas. This can be of extreme importance for at least three reasons. First, the "critical mass" of skilled people will grow effectively and the dissemination of the knowledge concerning the management plan process will be ensured. Second, the coherence of a national network of protected areas will be strengthened. Third, the implementation of the management plans will lead to transform some protected areas into real things, leaving the "international category of paper parks". The diagnosis phase has been the occasion to carry out extensive scientific studies and data. The involvement of scientific and research organisations in the implementation as well as in the evaluation process of the management plan should encourage them towards more application researches. This is a very positive fact, not only for the protected areas themselves, but for the role that science can play in the development of the country. At the time of concluding this review, some crucial questions have no real answer. They are mainly related to the difficult moment of leaving the "comfortable nest" of the MedWetCoast project. The actions and the first results at all sites can be questioned in technical and scientific terms, but the efforts and the progresses are not. The remaining issue is not so intellectually interesting: how to organise the administration of protected areas in a definitive and sustainable way? We hope that the experience led by the MWC sites will help reach MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 62 of 107
national decisions, and provide evidence that these areas are not only of high interest for biological diversity but also that a global and long term sustainable development vision is now associated to them. Tomorrow, the end of the MedWetCoast project must not be considered as the end of the process, neither by the local and national authorities, nor by the international donors and organisations. Looking now to the day after tomorrow, we propose some suggestions: -
-
-
Some form of participative approach has been used at all sites during the preparation phase; it will be very important to maintain and even enhance this way of working during the implementation phase (many difficulties will come when moving from possible actions to real ones) the project teams will have to continuously measure the differences between the management plan and its real implementation, not waiting for the formal evaluation. The field necessities, the budget, national or international events, or political decisions are going to disturb the magnificent organisation of the management plan, creating problems that could not be solved if not addressed rapidly the implementation of the first management plan must not keep all the time and energy of the team, leaving sufficient space for having yet in mind that it is a continuous process, with the next management plan at the very near horizon…
We hope really that this peer review could be of use for those involved in the MWC project. A lot has been done, a lot remains to be done. If many lessons have been learnt by the teams during the process and during that review, we, as reviewers, have also received lessons in the professional as well as in the friendship fields.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 63 of 107
ANNEXES Annex 1 – Management Plan Peer Review: Terms of Reference ...................................... 65 Annex 2 – Guidelines for Diagnosis ...................................................................................... 68 Annex 3 - MWC Guidelines for Management Planning..................................................... 91 Annex 4 - References............................................................................................................ 107
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 64 of 107
Annex 1 – Management Plan Peer Review: Terms of Reference LESSONS LEARNED INITIATIVE Management Plan Peer Review exercise Terms of Reference March 2005 1. Objective: to document the process that has been followed and engaged in the MWC countries in the preparation, drafting and follow up of the site management plans and, at the same time, to consolidate lessons learned and critical examples on that subject. The report will constitute one contribution to the ‘lessons learning’ outcome of the project. The exercise will also provide suggestions and recommendations for developing and/or finalizing the management plans for those few MWC sites that have not a final and approved document yet. Finally, the RCU will see to it that the report is distributed widely and, in particular, serves to inform the future redefinition/adjustments of management planning guidelines (Ramsar, IUCN). 2. Description of the tasks: A. Review and study of the process of preparation and drafting of the site management plans (MP) - Composition of the drafting committee, distribution of tasks, workplan, strategy, etc. - How the process has used the data gathered in the diagnosis phase (or through use of the some of the same experts/institutions, etc.) and how it builds on it. B. Examination of the following methodological principles of the Man Planning exercise : 1. Participation - To what extent the priorities of the MP reflect the needs and the concerns of the local /site communities and stakeholders - what is the degree of ownership of the MP by the stakeholders (‘appropriation’) ; any examples of stakeholders getting mobilised in support of certain aspects of the MP process. - To what extent the MP process has been accompanied by a series of public awareness and community development/planning activities? 2. Integration - How does the MP link up and integrate with the various sectoral policies of the area (political/institutional integration) - How does the MP link up with the upstream (watershed) and downstream (coastal and marine) ecosystems (ecosystem integration) 3. Measurable targets and indicators for the objectives
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 65 of 107
4. Monitoring system introduced in the Plan: how will the implementation of the management plan be monitored (targets clearly set for the objectives? Indicators of achievements identified?) 5. Identification of elements of the Plan which will facilitate and introduce its implementation (i.e. elements which help translate the Plan into a concrete programme of action), e.g. set up of a local steering committee, business plan and mobilization of finances (donor round table, etc.), prioritisation of the actions and measures, commitment from local stakeholders to undertaking some aspects of the plan, some of the measures developed into project proposals, etc. C. Identification of the common technical issues proper to wetland site MPs (versus other protected area MP) - Focus on the need to include the water authorities and agencies (and equipment ministry, dams, etc.) - Strong link with the water scarcity issue (North Africa) D. Assessing how and to what extent the tool ‘management plan’ is useful/has been useful in bringing about (further) protection of the site. Identify the conditions which can render the tool more effective and appropriate, e.g. legal status for the site preliminarily defined, awareness and participatory activities undertaken, accompanying the Man Plan process with other measures (urgent measures, communication, etc.) 3. Working modalities : Activities
Modalities
Timing
A working group composed of: 1 team leader/facilitator – 1 m/m + 2 national management plan coordinators (tentatively Albania and Tunisia,?) – 1 m/m each
Recruitment by RCU/UNOPS – charged Early April to RCU budget
Recruitment by national components/UNDP Cos – charged to respective national component April/May
1) Data review and collection: 1.1 desk study (of available MPs and draft MPs) : 1 Palestine, 3 Egypt, 2 Tunisia, 2 semi-final Team leader to provide guidance and Lebanon, 2 semi-final Albania, Morocco? by the reading template working group 1.2 a questionnaire to all national MP team leaders and MWC national coordinators 1.3 analysis and first draft of key points: difficulties, constraints, lessons, gaps, etc
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Team leader to prepare questionnaire working group to analyse documents and questionnaire results and draw first outline
Page 66 of 107
2) Visits of the Working Group to at least two sites (tent. Egypt and Lebanon?)
3) workshop gathering all national MP coordinators/team leaders (travel and stay to be born by national MWC projects) including working group + experts from associated agencies as appropriate 4) Preparation of consolidated report (tabled at next RAC5)
Travel costs of the 3 members covered by RCU. Travel organised by RCU. Local arrangements to be organised by the respective national component.
Early June (3/4 days per site) End of June
Meeting costs born by the RCU. Exact dates and location to be confirmed. Travel and stay covered by respective national components September 05
4. Timing Implementation over April-June 2005 Final report by end of September 2005.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 67 of 107
Annex 2 – Guidelines for Diagnosis
GUIDELINES FOR SITE DIAGNOSIS REPORTS Chapter 1 : Flora and Fauna Chapter 2 : Human activities and space utilization Chapter 3 : Wetlands Chapter 4 : Wetlands - Biodiversity Chapter 5 : Wetlands - Hydrology March 2001 01/2001
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
MWC
Publication
Page 68 of 107
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 : FLORA AND FAUNA 1
INTRODUCTION
2 SPECIES 3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES [only for botanical studies] 4 ANALYSIS ANNEXES
Page 03
Page 03 Page 04 Page 05 Page 06
Chapter 2 : HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND SPACE UTILIZATION 1. INTRODUCTION : DEMOGRAPHIC ESTIMATION
Page 07
2 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTIC
Page 07
3ACTIVITIES AND IMPACTS 4ANALYSIS
Page 07 Page 08
ANNEXES
Page 09
Chapter 3 : WETLANDS SITE 1. INTRODUCTION 2PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CATCHMENT AREA AND THE WETLAND SITE 3BIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF WETLANDS SITE 4ANALYSIS ANNEXES
Page 10 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13
Chapter 4 : WETLANDS SITE– BIODIVERSITY 1INTRODUCTION 2BIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF WETLANDS SITE 3ANALYSIS ANNEXES
Page 14 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16
Chapter 5 : WETLANDS SITE– HYDROLOGY 1INTRODUCTION 2PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CATCHMENT 3physical CHAracteristics of wetlands site 4ANALYSIS ANNEXES
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 17 Page 17 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19
Page 69 of 107
Chapter 1 : FLORA AND FAUNA 1.
INTRODUCTION -
2.
Summary assessment of existing information [from bibliography, own & local knowledge]. Relevance of the site to the specific flora or fauna group. Dynamics and evolution of the species group in the country, region and site [from bibliography, own & local knowledge]. Assessment of causes of species regression and of species extinction rate [if data is available].
SPECIES
[Consider the following four categories of important species (if the number of species in the group is small, please consider all the species):] 2.1.
Endemic
2.2.
Rare [in the area and at national level]
2.3.
Noteworthy [species that have a special interest: economic value, cultural value for local people, medicinal plants, dominant plants, very abundant species, introduced species, pest species, etc.]
2.4.
Threatened [according to national and/or international Red data lists] [Within each of the previous four categories, develop briefly the following sections for each species (following taxonomic order)]: a)
Description of the species (or sub/species)
[Indicate order, family, genus, species, subspecies…. Albanian and local name. Indicate those species that have an ecological, economic and/or patrimonial value, and those that are indicators of environmental quality or degradation, introduced species…] b) Distribution in the study area [known geographical locations] [give geographical coordinates, or (if not possible) grid reference, based on own data or other reliable data.] c) Assessment of the present status/interest [from existing knowledge & own experience]: - status of population (fauna) / community (flora) [abundance: total number, range, index of abundance; dominance for flora…]
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 70 of 107
-
status of distribution [is the species fragmented in small populations?, is it restricted to one/a few localities?, etc…] ecological status [does the species play a key role in the ecosystem functioning?] conservation status [Indicate land uses / threats affecting the species] seasonal status [resident, migratory, wintering…, mostly for birds]
[Within each of the four categories, summarize the information in a table and map(s)] d) Table of species [if species number is low, make 1 combined table for all the categories] Latin name
Albanian name
Location1
Abundance2
Species 1 Species 2 Species 3 … 1 2
geographic coordinates or grid reference total number, range or index of abundance e) Map(s) of distribution of species and/or location of potential areas, different uses of the area by the species (e.g. feeding, breeding, roosting for birds). [Map scale 1:25,000; if needed, certain features or specific areas can be mapped at a larger scale].
3.
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES [only for botanical studies]
3.1.
Introduction - Dynamics and evolution of vegetation in the region and site [from bibliography, own & local knowledge]. - Assessment of the causes of regression and/or degradation [if data is available].
3.2.
Vegetation structure a) Description of the vegetation types [Indicate order, alliance, association…. Indicate those types that have an ecological, economic and/or patrimonial value, and those that are indicators of environmental quality or degradation…] b) Spatial distribution of main vegetation types Include a map of the distribution of the main vegetation types [scale 1:25,000]. c) Cover and stratification
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 71 of 107
-
3.3.
According to the ToR, in this section there should appear: Type of dominant plant (tall ligneous>2m, shrub 100.000 hab.
2
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTIC
(based exclusively on the site area) a. Ethnologic morphology [if tribal structure still exists : ethnic lineage] b. Social organization [if sociologic entities exists : association, cooperative, other organization] c. Social equipment [infrastructures and equipment for health and education] d. Social categories [distribution of annual revenues, employment situation and evolution] e. Values and needs expressed by inhabitants [following results of participatory surveys]
3
ACTIVITIES AND IMPACTS
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 75 of 107
a. Land uses in the catchment area
• Legal status and approximate percentages devoted to: artificial (urban and industrial) surfaces, agricultural areas, forest and semi-natural areas, wetlands and water bodies • distribution of the most important land-uses [include a map(s) at scale 1:25,000 - 1:250,000 or smaller, depending on the size of the area]. b. Land uses in the site area (this chapter must be illustrated by map applications) • Legal status : Land tenure systems and access rights to resources (utilization of the concession system on public properties…) Real ownership of the resource (identification of the spheres of influence and prerogatives) [this section deals with the distribution of power within the community] Nature of land encumbrances and customs [this section deals with the identification with existing regulations : right of way for example) Summary of documents on urban planning of internal areas and/or of areas adjoining the sites Cartography of land property and of rights of use Legal status of a legislative and regulatory protection and outcomes (inside or near the site) typology and classification of land-uses [arable, permanent, temporary, irrigated, forestry, prairies, pasture, …] structuring of the habitat [dispersal of the habitat – qualities – networks : water, sanitation, electricity, roads] planning process [describe planning bodies and competent authorities with the role of each body – urban planning and other development plans and projects] c. Exploitation systems Give classical basic information with : • classification by degree for importance of activity : minor, medium, maximum • classification by level for environmental impact : no effect – effect no significant – effect significant – effect very significant • some precisions about main stakes for : gathering economies [fishing, hunting, harvest] exploitation of natural resource [agriculture, breeding, forestry, aquaculture] handicraft and small industry [if these activities could have an impact on the environment]
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 76 of 107
Water management [if exist an important traditional or industrial system] d. Systems of best-use [orient the presentation of information in relation with the eventual positive and negative impacts on the site, for :] • tourist use [indicate and map the main preferential areas] • pedagogic use [school, research, holiday camp,…] • recreational use [sports activities, events varied]
4
ANALYSIS
4.1. 4.2.
Impacts on the milieu for systems of exploitation [especially for main systems] Protection [compatibility between main objectives for ecological protection of site, and human activities] Sustainable use [- identify the constraints and opportunities of human activities, for the conservation of the site - determine the economic and social consequences of establishing priority protection objectives for rare, endemic and endangered species - formulate headlines for sustainable practices if the species is exploited or affected by human activities or land uses - formulate headlines for economic and social development, compatible with the objectives of sustainable conservation management strategy - formulate headlines for possible legal and regulatory protections for the sustainable conservation management of site] Monitoring [propose key indicators and simple methodologies for monitoring socioeconomic activities and land uses, including timing, equipment needed, …] Management [formulate management actions at short and medium term, about human activities –restriction, limitation, modifications…]
4.3.
4.4. 4.5.
ANNEXES Annex 1 MedWet Inventory datasheets : - [Catchment area: only section "3. Population land cover and impacts"]
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 77 of 107
-
[Site: only parts of sections "4. Values" & "5. Status", which are relevant to human activities] [Activities & impacts: complete datasheet for the main activities affecting the site]
Annex 2 Brief description of the methodology followed in the field. Annex 3 Reference list [bibliography, thematic maps, aerial photos, others…]. [Follow the MedWet datasheet of references]. Annex 4 List of key contacts and sources of information [scientists, naturalists, local people, agencies, institutions, NGO…] [Follow the MedWet datasheet of key contacts]. Annex 5 Copies of the [few] most relevant bibliographic references.
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 78 of 107
Chapter 3 : WETLANDS SITE 1
INTRODUCTION -
2
General context and description of the wetlands site Knowledge available [from bibliography, own & local knowledge] Chronology and bio ecological evolution of the wetlands site [to inform if literature exists]
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CATCHMENT AREA AND THE WETLAND SITE 2.1. Characteristics of the catchment area Indicators to be taken into account: = (catchment level, including flowing waters) a) Physical characteristics - Location: latitude, longitude, altitude (min-max), surface area (in Km2) - Inventory and gathering of all existing climatic data on the catchment, and in particular rainfall, temperature, dominant bioclimates* - Spatial distribution / hydro graphic network - River length (for major river, in Kilometres) - Catchment area (surface area in Km²)… * NOTE: use the bioclimates as in the MedWet inventory datasheets: 1 - Saharian; 2 – Arid Mediterranean; 3 – Semi-arid Mediterranean; 4 – Sub-humid Mediterranean; 5 – Humid Mediterranean. b) Water regime and water management - Inventory and gathering of all existing hydrometric data (average flow (in Hm³ per year), time series of flows, surface and water levels) about rivers and artificial channels (e.g. irrigation canals). - Hydrologic data / periodicity, water height, tidal range… c) Sectoral process - extraction and gathering, diversion 2.2. Hydrology of the wetland site Indicators to be taken into account: = (site level)
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 79 of 107
d) General physiognomy - Surface area (in hectares); minimum and maximum known surface area of the wetland according to its water level - Length (in the case of rivers and watercourses) - Bathymetry / topography - Diversity/heterogeneity of habitats] e) Hydrologic data Volume, flood depths, level of water, ground water, distribution of water (natural, artificial, permanent, non permanent…), tidal range f) Abiotic quality Sedimentology, salinity, solid in suspension, major pollutants (nitrogen and phosphorous; pesticides, heavy metals) g) Dynamics and movements extraction and gathering, major flows, dumping, exchanges and gradient, seasonality
3
BIOLOGICAL QUALITY OF WETLANDS SITE 3.1. Biotic populations Indicators to be taken into account : = (site level) a) Aquatic vegetation - Abundance and diversity (especially for the main species) - Communities: phytosociology data for main habitats - Phaenologic relationship: presence and absence for the relevant month - Composition and structure: distribution, cover and height… b) Aquatic fauna - Abundance and diversity (especially for main species) - Communities: synecologic data for main habitats - Phaenologic relationship: presence and absence for the relevant month - Composition and structure: distribution per habitats… 3.2. Quality of the ecosystem Indicators to be taken into account : = (site level) c) Typology and physiognomy of habitats - List of habitats, following the Ramsar habitat types* FOR EACH HABITAT TYPE, INDICATE: - Condition**: actual condition of the habitat in terms of human-induced changes - Artificiality***: refers to the level of importance of the water management by humans - Variations: about water and biological population
MedWetCoast Management Plan Peer Review
Page 80 of 107
- Distribution of aquatic habitats: map of the site * NOTE: See “MedWet-Mediterranean Wetland Inventory manual: Data recording – vol. II. Annex H” ** NOTE: use the scale for condition as in the MedWet inventory datasheets: 0 - Unknown; 1 - Untouched. No signs of man/made changes; 2 Original vegetation/ landform still predominant (>50%); 3 - Original vegetation/landform partially modified (10-50% untouched); 4 vegetation/landform highly modified (
