united nations development programme · web view2003/05/19 · 13. country eligibility: cbd...

Bottlenecks for soaring migratory birds - Project Concept Paper

GEF Concept Paper for a Full Project

1. PROJECT TITLE: Protection of key bottleneck bird areas1 for soaring migratory birds in the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway (Rift valley and Red Sea flyways)

2. GEF IMPLEMENTING AGENCY: UNDP & WORLD BANK

3. COUNTRY OR COUNTRIES IN WHICH THE PROJECT IS BEING IMPLEMENTED:

Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen

4. GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Biodiversity

5. OPERATIONAL PROGRAM/SHORT-TERM MEASURE:OP-1 (overall) cross cutting with Land Degradation

6. COUNTRY DRIVENESS:

The project is consistent with the priority conservation objectives, environmental action plans and policies of the participating countries/authority. It is specifically based on the priorities given by the national biodiversity strategies and action plans (NBSAPs) and the biodiversity country studies (BCS) giving special recognition to protection and sustainable management of critical bird habitats and migratory routes along the Eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia Flyway. The principal goals of the NBSAPs are the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including avifauna, protection and management of natural resources, promotion of networks for protected areas management, conduct research and monitoring on biodiversity including support taxonomic investigation and building biodiversity data network. Until the present time, eight countries (Djibouti, Egypt, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen) have completed their national biodiversity strategies and action plans while three (Jordan, Ethiopia and Eritrea) are at a final stage of completion. The bottleneck IBAs proposed under this project (Annex 3) are globally important for soaring migrants and all have been mentioned in one (or more) of the following documents: NBSAPs, national conservation plans, NEAP, biodiversity country studies and Bird Life International bird conservation series in the region. Recently, at the national workshop, held in May 2002 in Amman, all participants – including GEF Focal Points - have asked UNDP and BirdLife International to secure GEF resources for this project based its priority within the region and the objectives it aims to attain for conservation of globally threatened migratory soaring birds at the project intervention sites along the flyway.

At the regional level, the Gulf and Middle East countries have long been cooperating with Birdlife International, IUCN and WWF to develop the first comprehensive and detailed compilation of information on areas important for bird migration covering all species and countries in the region using objective criteria for site selection. A total of 391 sites within the Middle East region are accredited priority conservation status by BirdLife International and are identified in the 1994 compendium of Important Bird Areas in the Middle East (Birdlife Conservation Series, No 2) . In October 2001, Birdlife International launched the African IBA book, which is the culmination of 10-years of effort to identify and catalogue a

1 Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme aims to identify and protect a network of sites critical for the long-term viability of wild bird populations, across the range of those bird species for which a sites-based approach is appropriate.IBAs are sites of global biodiversity conservation importance, chosen using internationally agreed, objective, quantitative and scientifically defensible criteria. IBAs are selected because they hold bird species that are threatened with extinction, have highly restricted distributions, or are characteristic of particular biomes. Sites holding exceptionally large numbers of congregatory birds also qualify. See Annex 4 for details.

Bottlenecks for soaring migratory birds - Project Concept

globally significant network of Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands2. This identified 146 IBAs in the countries included in this project3, covering a total area of 269,360 km2.

At the level of the CBD, the project builds upon the objectives and guidance of the Biodiversity Convention through its emphasis on minimizing threats and root causes to globally significant and fragile ecosystems. Five other international conventions and programs are also particularly relevant to the objectives of the project and to specific conservation activities on sites. These are the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), the Bonn Convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals, the World Heritage Convention; the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Program, and the CCD (Convention to Combat Desertification).

7. CONTEXT

7.1 Summary of Project Rationale

Migratory birds are among the most remarkable components of global biodiversity. Their seasonal migrations, often many thousands of miles long, appeal to man’s imagination and create wonder, awe and a sense of mystery. Birds are also important indicators of the ecological condition and productivity of ecosystems. A wide range of stakeholders, including local populations, tourists and researchers, values their presence.

Managing and protecting migratory bird populations has been particularly challenging. This is because of the vast range of habitats they occupy during the course of their seasonal cycle and the need to undertake work in very different ecological and political conditions in the breeding grounds, in the wintering areas as well as along the migratory routes.

Some birds are more vulnerable than others when on migration, depending upon their migratory traits. Many bird species migrate on a “broad front” with, for instance, birds from across the breeding range heading south in a wave, which spans the continent from east to west. Some of these birds store fat reserves before making their flights then climb to high elevations to make their long migratory “jumps”. Evidence strongly suggests that some of these species can travel hundreds of kilometers in one single migratory flight. Their habitat choice when on migration can be broad. Whilst it is true that such species can be concentrated around physical features from time to time, for instance along coastlines when making landfall or in verdant river valleys when crossing mountain chains in poor weather conditions, it is generally thought that these birds over-fly obstacles in their path and so are not particularly vulnerable due to concentrations in numbers4.

However, another set of bird species have much more restricted options when migrating, either because of very particular habitat requirements when on stopover or because their physiologies constrain them to fly at low elevations and rely upon local air currents in order to migrate. Such species are very vulnerable during the migratory phase of their annual life cycle because they are concentrated in numbers at a time when they are physiologically stressed by the effort of migration. Since these birds are very reliant upon a linked chain of unhindered passage routes and suitable stopover sites their effective protection is only as strong as the weakest link in the system. This offers a complex challenge to which the global biodiversity conservation community must rise.

There are three main terrestrial migratory bird systems in the world: the Palaearctic-South Asian, the Americas and the Palaearctic-African. All three systems have fascinated ornithologists over many decades and have been the foci for a range of descriptive and comparative studies.

The Palaearctic-African Bird Migration Systems

2 Fishpool and Evans 20013 Djibouti 7 sites, 1,112 km2 ; Egypt 34 sites, 34,719 km2 ; Eritrea 14 sites, 4,690 km2 ; Ethiopia 69 sites, 47,757 km2 ; Sudan 22 sites, 181,082 km2 - these are ALL sites in these countries and not just migratory bottlenecks.4 It is worth noting here that although some of these species may not be particularly vulnerable whilst on migration they may, nevertheless, be in decline as a result of wide scale changes in their preferred breeding or wintering habitats.

2


The Palaearctic-African migration systems are quite well understood, the routes and populations being fairly well described and the key species have been enumerated over time at a number of focal sites 5. It is remarkable to think that at the end of the breeding season in northern latitudes an estimated 5,000,000,000 birds (a large proportion of which are juvenile) face a journey south of up to seven or even eight thousand kilometers to reach their African wintering grounds. The overall pattern of movement is complex with birds streaming into Africa from the breadth of the northern landmasses with high altitude, broad-front and low altitude migrants moving in parallel. As pointed out above, it is the low altitude migrants, which need clear flyways, and particular stopover sites, which are of main concern from a conservation perspective.

It has been found that waterfowl, near-passerines and some passerines do congregate during their migration, and these congregations reach globally significant numbers at key stopover sites. These are often wetlands but areas of grassland and woodland can be important for some species at key geographical locations. Many of the sites of importance for these species are now the subject of a dedicated UNEP-GEF Project in support of the Africa-Eurasian Waterfowl Agreement (see box).

Box 1: GEF Block B project “Enhancing conservation of the critical network of wetlands required by migratory waterbirds in the African/Eurasian flyways” The GEF recently approved a PDF B for a project that is aiming to enhance the conservation of part of the Eurasian/African bird migration system with a focus on a critical network of wetlands required by migratory water birds. This is an important initiative and a landmark in attempting to deal with some of the key issues outlined above. It should be emphasized that this UNEP/Wetlands International project is tightly focussed upon waterbirds. The project, which is in development at the time of writing, will use the Africa-Eurasian Waterfowl Agreement (AEWA) under the Convention for Migratory Species (CMS) to implement a series of wide scale habitat conservation measures as well as a set of small scale site-based “demonstration” projects. The site-based projects have been selected to show action in support of the key themes and areas of concern with respect to the wider wetland habitat measures. In summary, this project uses the interest and expertise in migratory waterfowl conservation to ensure effective long-term action for wetland habitats.

Soaring birds have also been found to be vulnerable, both in their migratory flights as well as at stopovers. Soaring birds migrate by an unusual method, which limits the migratory routes, resulting in patterns of movement in “flyways” rather akin to the routes used by long-haul airliners. Soaring migrants use a system of ascent on thermals of hot air, which rise from level ground, which has been heated by the sun, in order to gain necessary lift and hence assist them to soar up to altitude. Once aloft, the birds make progress by means of a long distance glide at a shallow angle gradually descending until they find another thermal on which to gain height again. This pattern of rising by soaring then gliding to cover the ground is used for their whole migration. These species will use flapping flight only when rising from the ground, or in trouble. Such soaring birds are normally large bodied with broad wings and tails; they are mostly species of raptors, storks and pelicans (see Annex 1).

These birds normally move in flocks and form streams along flyways over level ground in spectacular low altitude migrations. The main problem for soaring migrants is the lack of rising warm air currents over water, so they cannot cross and avoid seas and other large bodies of water and they often find mountain ranges difficult to negotiate too. Therefore the geography of the Eurasian and African continents mean that the birds are forced through narrow migratory “bottlenecks” when the main flyways reach water crossings – usually at the narrowest point – or where the birds need to skirt around areas of very high ground. It is these bottlenecks that are the main concern of this project.

Soaring birds, and particularly the raptors, are key indicator species of the conditions of the ecosystems they live in. They are relatively large-bodied species at the top of the food chain and are often more vulnerable than other species in the same habitats. The densities of raptors in their breeding grounds and 5 The foundation work by R. E. Moreau, R. E. (1972) The Palaearctic-African Bird Migration Systems was published posthumously and brought together ground-breaking research from the 1950s and 60s. This work was reviewed at a meeting in 1991 (Crick, H. Q. P. and Jones, P. J. (1992) The Ecology and Conservation of Palearctic-African Migrants; Ibis 134 [suppl. 1]) which added to his findings but mostly served to uphold Moreau’s descriptions and theories. The descriptions herein thus follow Moreau.

3


wintering quarters are relatively low and the numbers are widely distributed but they are very vulnerable to impacts when at high densities at these migratory bottlenecks.

From a conservation perspective the quality of information is particularly good for many of these species when in their northern breeding grounds and some of the key sites and habitats have improved for birds (particularly in Western and Northern Europe) over the years. Thus the status of some birds has improved, or is at least the object of efforts for improvement, in many of the Palaearctic breeding grounds. The conditions are less well known and sometimes strikingly different in the southern wintering grounds. However, recently there have been a number of initiatives focusing on improvement of the conditions for birds in the African region too6. Nevertheless, relatively little attention has as yet been given to the protection of birds while in transit on their migratory routes, although these can, for many bird species, be recognized as one of the most vulnerable parts of their lifecycle.

In the Palaearctic-African system there are four entry/exit points, which are bottlenecks for soaring migrants:

1. Straits of Gibraltar: Most westerly where breeding birds from western Europe move through the Iberian peninsula and cross the Straits of Gibraltar to make landfall at Cape Spartel in Morocco before dispersing across west Africa. This is a major crossing point with over 100,000 birds using this bottleneck.

2. Sicily and Malta Channels: In the middle Mediterranean 10-20,000 birds traverse the narrow sea crossing from Tunisia to Italy.

3. Eastern Mediterranean, River Jordan to Nile valley corridor: The main eastern corridor between Europe/Asia and Africa has a series of passage sites starting from the north-eastern corner and south along the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, into the Jordan valley, through Sinai and across to the Nile valley. Over a million birds regularly pass through a series of bottleneck sites each season. This is one of, if not the, most significant corridors for bird migration in the world.

4. Bab al Mandab: A further crossing for probably mostly central Asian birds into eastern Africa at the mouth of the Red Sea. This has only been known to be a significant bottleneck relatively recently and is still not surveyed on the Yemeni side. Over 200,000 raptors cross these straits in autumn.

Important Bird Areas (IBAs): bottleneck sites

Many sites are exceptionally important for the habitats and ecosystems that they encompass and for the survival of bird species dependent upon them. BirdLife International, using globally agreed criteria, rigorously applied to the bird species and numbers they hold, has carefully identified these sites. Sites, which qualify are termed Important Bird Areas (IBAs). The main function of a programme aimed at the conservation of IBAs is to identify and protect a network of sites, which may be considered the absolute minimum required to ensure survival of the species concerned, if all other habitat outside these sites is lost or degraded (see Annex 3).

There are four main categories by which a site may qualify as an IBA, one of which, “Congregations”, includes the following criterion relating to qualification as a migratory 'bottleneck': a site known or thought to be a bottleneck where more than 20,000 storks, pelicans, raptors or cranes, or a combination thereof regularly pass during migration

Bottlenecks are recognized as valuable or sensitive sites where migratory birds are perceived to be vulnerable by congregation while on passage. This category also embraces sites over which migrants congregate before gaining height on thermals. Although it is the airspace here that is important, conservation of the land beneath may be necessary to protect the site from threats, such as hunting and the construction of radio masts, etc. In addition to being sites where high concentrations of flying migrants

6 For example, the Important Bird Areas in Africa programme of the BirdLife Partnership is being implemented by national organisations working closely with their governments in over 20 African countries – see Annex 5 for background information.

4


pass, some sites are important staging or roosting sites for large numbers of birds. Conservation efforts focused on these bottleneck IBAs are particularly important to ensure adequate overall protection for globally threatened migratory bird species.

The Eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway Rift valley and Red Sea flyways): BirdLife considers the Eastern Mediterranean, River Jordan to Nile Valley corridor (and Babel al Mandeb) to be an important focus and has classified it to be of priority for conservation action as part of the IBA programme in the 2000-2004 strategy and programme7.

The flyways in the region are quite complex (see Figure 1.). Southbound migrants reach the area from Eastern Europe (having crossed the Bosphorus) or Asia (having skirted either the Black or the Caspian Sea) by crossing Turkey and entering Syria as they have rounded the northeastern corner of the Mediterranean. The majority of the birds follow the eastern shore of the Mediterranean but evidence suggests that those birds heading further south in order to cross at Babal al Mandeb branch off to the east in Syria.

Figure 1. The Eastern Mediterranean, River Jordan to Nile valley corridor and Babel al Mandeb crossing (eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway) for soaring migratory birds.

The figure above shows the migratory corridors used by soaring bird in both northward (spring) and southward (autumn) migrations. Note that the exact routes taken in the north- and south-bound journeys differ seasonally and between species. For instance White Storks Ciconia ciconia when heading south pass through the southern Sinai region of Egypt and cross the mouth of the Gulf of Suez to make landfall on the west coast of the Red Sea before heading across the Eastern Desert to the Nile valley and onward south. When heading north some birds stay in the Nile Valley until they are further north then head east to skirt round the northern coast of the Gulf of Suez and across the northern Sinai to pick up the Jordan valley and then continue northward. This map shows a consolidated summary of such variations in routings.

The bulk of the birds form a mass flyway through Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine and Jordan–the Jordan valley is a particularly important part of the corridor. An additional smaller branch from central and 7 See BirdLife 2000 - the strategy of BirdLife International 2000-2004 which identifies site conservation (IBAs) as a key objective and The Middle East Regional Programme 2000-2004 which outlines research, action and education targets for IBAs in the region. Migratory “Bottleneck” IBAs have been selected as priorities at national and regional levels.

5


eastern Asia joins the main flyway in Jordan. The raptors branch westwards across the northern Sinai to skirt round the north of the Gulf of Suez before crossing the Eastern Desert to reach the Nile valley. The storks head due south across the Sinai and bridge the Gulf of Suez from the south west shore of the Sinai to make landfall around Gebel el Zeit before heading over to the Nile valley and then turn southward. Some birds do, however, track along the western shore of the Gulf of Suez and it is thought that they continue on south along the Red Sea coast into Sudan and Eritrea. This latter route is probably most important in spring.

In Arabia the stream of migrants grows with the addition of migrants from further east and these birds then flow across Babel al Mandeb into Djibouti. There is some evidence that this stream crosses Ethiopia to reach the eastern edge of the northern highlands – where the birds may be joined by those migrating along the western shore of the Red Sea – before following the Rift valley southwards.

A significant proportion of the world population of soaring birds use this flyway, including White Pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus), Common Crane (Grus grus), Black Stork (Ciconia nigra), White Stork (Ciconia ciconia), Honey Buzzard (Pernis apivorus), Short-toed Eagle (Circaetus gallicus), Levant Sparrow Hawk (Accipiter brevipes), Steppe Buzzard (Buteo vulpines), Lesser Spotted Eagle (Aquila pomarina), Steppe Eagle (Aquila nipalensis) and Imperial Eagle (Aquila heliaca). The numbers of birds at bottleneck IBAs in this region can be very impressive with, for instance, over 100,000 birds of mixed species recorded at Gebel el Zeit in one day in 1989. As a result of such congregations bottleneck IBAs have been identified in each country in the region as a part of the national IBA identification and conservation process (see Figure 2.).

Figure 2. IBAs in the E. Mediterranean, Jordan River to Nile valley corridor and Babel al Mandeb (the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway) which support soaring migratory birds (see Annex 5 for details of criteria and Annex 3 for list of sites).

Along the Eastern Mediterranean, River Jordan to Nile valley corridor and the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway a total of 308 IBAs have so far been identified in the countries that make up this migratory route; of these 28 are 'bottleneck' IBAs that support soaring birds on migration (see Table 1.).

6


Table 1. Total numbers of IBAs and bottleneck IBAs in each country (as per Figure 2. & Annex 3.) in the Eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasian flyway8.

Country Total number of IBAs (all criteria)

Bottleneck IBAs

Notes

Syria 22 2 Poorly known – probably more sites

Lebanon 4 1Palestine (& Israel) 18 2Jordan 17 6Egypt 34 5Sudan 22 ? Poorly known – probably some

sitesEritrea 14 2? Two sites to be confirmedDjibouti 7 1Ethiopia 69 1? One to be confirmed. Probably

more.Saudi Arabia 39 3Yemen 57 5 Poorly known – probably more

sitesTotals 308 28

In addition to these 28 confirmed IBAs, there are other sites within the region that are suspected of being bottleneck IBAs based on their geography, location and 'circumstantial' evidence (Appendix 8). The status of these sites needs to be verified through survey during spring and autumn migration periods. This will be an activity of the PDF-B phase.

While focusing on migratory soaring birds, the IBAs which qualify under the bottleneck criterion are also sites of global importance for other biodiversity. Species-rich coral reefs fringe the coasts and islands. Several species of endangered sea turtle breed along the Red Sea coasts and islands. Other globally threatened animals inhabit the marine and desert environments, including Dugong (Dugong dugong), Dorcas Gazelle (Gazella dorcas) and Nubian Ibex (Capra nubiana). A number of endemic and restricted range plants and animals also occur.

Justification for the regional approach

The project sets out to achieve improved conservation status of a number of key sites, which are of global biodiversity significance because of the presence of high numbers of globally threatened soaring birds and other biodiversity. These sites have been selected using the “bottleneck” criteria, as defined by BirdLife International, and are subject to a host of threats and are characterized by a general lack of, or inadequate, conservation efforts. None of these sites can be seen in isolation, because they are critically linked being “bottlenecks” for soaring migratory birds situated on the migratory corridor (or flyway) connecting the breeding and wintering grounds of these species. Only a concerted approach to ensuring conservation at those key sites across the entire flyway can result in improved conservation status of the population of these birds and their habitats (see Figure 3 for a diagrammatic simplification).

On a regional scale, this project aims to complement a number of planned and on-going efforts in the region as well as outside e.g. UNEP and other donors (German). UNEP is currently implementing a PDF-B GEF project on enhancing conservation of the critical network of wetlands required by migratory water 8 Sources were: Evans, M.I. 1994. Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 2. BirdLife International, Cambridge and Fishpool, L.D.C. and Evans, M. I. eds. (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 11). For some countries these figures are being updated through more detailed national inventories. For example, the IBA Directory for Jordan lists 27 IBAs of which 11 are Bottleneck sites. These additional sites have yet to be included in the overall analysis of the status of the network of soaring bird bottleneck IBAs (e.g. see table 2).

7


birds on the African-Eurasian Flyway. Coordination with these programs/projects should be ensured to maximize global and national benefits and to effectively determine the GEF increment. These links will provide important insight to the management of protected areas subject to similar pressures, and data resulting from site surveys during implementation phases will be shared between all networks to maximize global benefits. Further details on complementary GEF initiatives are found in Annex 7.

Figure 3: Why conservation of migrating soaring birds requires a regional approach9

Definition of the project area

The geographical scope for intervention of this project is the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia Flyway. This comprises the entire Jordan Rift Valley and Red Sea flyways, from their northern limit across Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine10, Egypt, Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia to the southern end in Djibouti and Yemen11. While this describes the outer limits, it is obviously recognized that it is impractical to cover such a vast area, and, fortunately, not necessary either to achieve our

9 See list of IBA sites likely to be addressed by the project (and the total list of IBAs): Annexes 3 and 8. 10 Israel also has bottleneck IBAs which are known to be well resourced and managed. This and the considerable current diplomatic issues surrounding any potential extension of the project into Israel mitigate in favour of keeping this as an option for future discussion rather than of explicit inclusion at this stage.

8

The figure provides a diagrammatic representation of the migratory flyways of soaring birds from their breeding grounds in the north, via the Jordan Valley and Red Sea, to their non-breeding grounds in the south. The arrows represent the density of birds. At the ‘bottlenecks’, where the density is highest, the birds are most vulnerable. However, from a regional (and global) perspective it is the lack of alternatives to these bottleneck IBAs, and the requirement for all of them to be conserved that is significant. The geography of the region demands that birds pass through these sites, and birds must pass safely through all of them in order to safely complete their migration. Therefore protection of sites in the Jordan valley in Lebanon, for example, will not effectively protect soaring birds if they are unable to complete their migration to their breeding grounds because of threats at a bottleneck in Egypt – one break in the ‘chain’ of bottleneck sites has serious implications for the functionality of the whole system. It is for this reason that a coordinated regional approach is essential.


objective. By focusing our intervention to improving conservation at key “bottlenecks”, we can ensure an improved and safer passage throughout the entire flyway. While a good amount of data have been collected already in several countries, and IBAs and bottlenecks have been identified, there are significant gaps in the database, as some countries have not been systematically surveyed (for instance Yemen or Sudan). In addition, not all bottlenecks are threatened. This project will only focus on the threatened and vulnerable sites, and those requiring most urgent attention. At this stage of project preparation it is not possible to provide a full list of sites where the project proposes to intervene. However, based on the currently available information the sites listed in Annex 3 can already be included as project sites (criteria for listing sites as threatened are explained in Annex 5). During the PDF B stage further surveys will be undertaken to fill in the gaps in our knowledge and will focus, among others, on Syria, the Red Sea Coast of Sudan, Yemen, Djibouti, Eritrea and Ethiopia for possible identification of bottlenecks to be included in the full project (e.g. see table 2).

7.2 Root Causes and major threats to Soaring Birds of the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia Flyway

Nearly all countries of the region in collaboration with BirdLife International have carried out work in context of the IBA program. This work has resulted in several publications including regional directories/series of Important Bird Areas have been produced for the Middle East and Africa, and national directories have been produced for Egypt, Palestine Territories, Jordan and Ethiopia. The surveys done in the context of these works have identified some 395 IBAs in 15 countries in the Middle East and a further 151 in the relevant African countries. Preliminary surveys conducted have revealed a number of imminent threats to the bird species and their habitats resulting from various human-induced activities.

Several parts of the region are undergoing a period of rapid development, much of which is having an impact on the coastlines and adjacent desert areas. Many coastal regions were until the recent past undeveloped arid lands with small settlements and low numbers of indigenous inhabitants. The development activities in coastal areas, in their adjacent desert and marine environments as well as in the Jordan Rift Valley, are known to be having impacts on migratory birds. Expanding urban, industrial and tourism development is creating hazards to birds in areas where no previous threats existed. These threats include direct threats from the development activities or related infrastructure, e.g. direct destruction of habitats, pollutant contamination by byproducts and the construction of power lines or similar infrastructure works.

Migration patterns are being altered and disrupted. Migratory birds used to pass through the hyper-arid regions along the flyway as quickly as possible. Attractions, such as water, food and shade are being created, luring birds to land and causing them to spend longer periods of time in certain areas. Once in the area, birds face many threats resulting in injuries, illness and death. While some hazards affect small numbers of birds on a seasonal basis, it is thought that the cumulative impacts can be quite high over time. Furthermore, injuries sustained while migrating through these areas can lead to increased mortality later on.

Of high concern are the bottlenecks where large numbers of low-flying soaring birds land to rest and roost overnight or actively feed. Inappropriate development and human activities (e.g. hunting) in these areas can disrupt migration patterns significantly and cause undue stress, injury and in the worst case result in potentially high mortality rates. The threats are not confined to the IBAs, but appear also in adjacent areas. Based on the information so far available, the following direct threats are known to affect migrating birds and soaring birds in particular:

Threats

Development. The construction of tourism development, industry and urbanization in sensitive areas could disrupt migration patterns and destroy necessary stop over and landing sites for birds. The impacts on migratory birds of such developments have often not been fully assessed or studied. 11 The project will implemented in the 11 countries listed. However, the project will progress at different speeds, and activities will be country-specific, according to capacity of organizations, reliability of information and results of the PDF-B phase of activities.

9


While large tracts of undeveloped coastline still remain, there are plans to develop these areas in the next five to twenty years, especially along the South Sinai and south-west Gulf of Suez coast which has been identified as an area for wind energy production. The development of such areas could have adverse impacts and implications for the large numbers of low flying soaring birds passing through and landing at these sites.

Infrastructure and operational practices associated with such developments, which are known to have negative impacts on migratory birds, are waste management facilities and power lines (discussed separately below). Among the harmful operational practices noted are use of chemicals to maintain gardens, use of insecticides such as DTT to control pest species and cultivation of non-native flora in landscaping of little benefit to migrating birds.

Wind Energy Production. The Gulf of Suez has some of the highest wind speeds in the region and is being identified and developed for wind energy production. Wind farms established in sensitive areas such as bottlenecks are high-risk areas for collisions between migrants and wind turbine blades under certain conditions. Waste Management Facilities. Waste management facilities for solid and liquid wastes are attractions for migratory birds. Facilities are being designed and constructed without sufficient consideration to impacts on migratory species creating hazards causing injury, illness and death.

Wastewater treatment ponds have been constructed with steep sides and have resulted in birds drowning. Sludge is not regularly dredged and birds become coated or drown in the sludge. Water at some of the plants is of poor quality and potentially toxic to birds and other wildlife.

The design and operation of solid waste disposal facilities is also hazardous to birds. There is no sorting of organic and non-organic waste, which is dumped in open-air pits and partially buried or burned. Birds that land and consume organic materials are entangled in waste, ingest plastic bags, consume toxic materials or are injured by broken glass, barbed wire and other sharp materials. Open air burning of garbage is known to cause injuries to birds. The soot soils the plumage of birds impairing their flight capabilities.

Power lines and other tall structures. Collisions also occur between migrants and power lines, communication towers and other tall structures erected in sensitive areas where there are large numbers of low flying migrants or near areas where large numbers of migrants land. These hazards are often situated next to sewage treatment plants, garbage dumps, green areas and other attractions where large numbers of migratory birds congregate increasing the risk of collision.

Oil Pollution. The Gulf of Suez is one of the principal areas for oil exploration, extraction and transport in the flyway region. Oil pollution both in marine and terrestrial areas is a potential threat to migrating, wintering and resident birds along the Gulf of Suez. Migrants are known to be attracted and land at oil spills in terrestrial areas that appear when seen from above as water – they then become trapped or coated in oil.

Hunting. Large numbers of migratory birds are hunted throughout the region for food, sport and supplementary income. All species of migratory birds both game and non-game birds are hunted, including birds of prey, storks, water birds, and passerines and near passerines. Falcon trapping is prevalent in several parts of the flyway, among others in the Egyptian deserts, particularly along the coasts. There are no precise figures, but it is estimated that hundreds of Peregrine Falco peregrinus and smaller numbers of Saker Falco cherrug are annually caught in Egypt and exported to the Arabian Peninsula countries for falconry. Migratory and resident birds are caught and utilized as decoys to catch the higher value falcons, most being maimed and dying in the process. Hunting is non-specific; all species of birds of prey are trapped, including those listed under the CMS and CITES Conventions.

Lack of effective Protected Area networks. Of the twenty-eight confirmed bottleneck IBAs in the region only 11 have any protected area status at present (Table 3.). Whilst the establishment of a formal Protected

10


Area may not be appropriate in all cases it is still worth stressing that the systems of protected areas in some of the participating countries do not fully encompass the entire national biodiversity wealth. The potential to use the established links between the IBA and the NBSAP processes at national levels to ensure greater support to these key areas is worth flagging at this point.

TABLE 3. PROTECTION STATUS OF BOTTLENECK IBAS IN THE E. MEDITERRANEAN, RIVER JORDAN TO NILE VALLEY CORRIDOR AND BABEL AL MANDEB CROSSING REGIONS (SEE ANNEX 3).

National Park Other Protected Area

Partial protection Unprotected Total

2 5 4 17 28

Other. Uncontrolled tourism, such as to the northern Red Sea Islands and the Dead Sea coast in Jordan, could disturb resting migrants during the migration period. There is also habitat degradation due to overgrazing, fuel wood collection, off-road vehicles, quarrying and soil mining.

Root causes

A problem analysis at the PDF-A workshop in Jordan (May 2002) helped to identify, at a regional level, the root causes of the immediate threats described above.

Policy, legal and planning environment not supportive. Proper policies and effective management enforcing measures and regulatory frameworks supporting bird conservation are lacking. There is also a general lack of urban planning, biodiversity-friendly tourism guidelines and effective measures for sustainable hunting and bird trading.

Low awareness. There is low awareness and appreciation in all echelons of society in the countries concerned of their biodiversity and its importance. Correspondingly, there are few organisations active in the field of bird and biodiversity conservation.

Inadequate information. Little up-to-date information is available in the countries on modern environmental management methods and techniques to mitigate hazards to migratory birds. Although BirdLife International and others have done some baseline work on the distribution and biology of soaring birds in the region, many information gaps remain to be filled.

Few incentives for sustainable management. Stakeholders at sites have few incentives for development and management that is sensitive to the needs of soaring birds. Local/national authorities and companies are often unaware of alternatives to development that can mitigate negative impacts (through sensitive design or strategic positioning of infrastructure for example). Local communities and their support agencies do not have information on development options that bring social and economic benefits to local people, whilst maintaining biodiversity values.

Inadequate coordination. As described in section 7.2, conservation of migrating soaring birds requires a regional approach. Poor coordination within the region (due to absence of effective information networks and mechanisms for storage and dissemination of data) is an obstacle to conservation of soaring birds.

Insufficient capacity. Limited capacity exists at the national level in bird identification and survey techniques, as well as in the application of appropriate management and conservation measures.

Although growing in significance, these problems are not yet severe in many areas of the flyway, and could therefore be effectively regulated by improving conservation measures, introducing sustainable management concepts and creating effective monitoring programs.

The problem analysis went on to analyze the source of these root causes. The resulting problem tree is presented in Annex 2. Based on this analysis the following problem statement can be defined: the populations of many, globally threatened and vulnerable, migratory soaring birds are endangered by

11


increasing mortality occurring during their seasonal migration following the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway (Rift Valley and Red Sea flyways), due to their increased exposure to a number of threats and a general lack of conservation efforts in this region.

8. BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION

Baseline activities at the site level are, at present, quite restricted. At the site level the two National Parks – Ras Mohamed in Egypt and Petra in Jordan – are expected to continue to be well managed and supported by a combination of government and donor resources. The other protected areas in Syria, Palestine Territories and Jordan have less well-established management systems and levels of resourcing are expected to be variable over the anticipated project period. The rest of the sites are unprotected and not subject to formal management agreements, government and donor resourcing etc. However, there are a range of site-local, community driven interests already established at some sites although these are, at present, mostly in their early stages and it is difficult to predict their exact futures.

At national levels some of the globally threatened bird species enjoy certain levels of official protection and the national IBA programs to conserve all sites are being driven forward by national networks in most countries (see Annex 6). The BirdLife program enjoys support from a wide range of members and donors and is expected to provide a baseline of activity at a national level, which underpins project activities identified herein.

BirdLife is also working at regional levels in the Middle East and Africa, networking, sharing experience and developing cross regional projects and programs where necessary (such as this project).

Soaring birds are not at present selected for special consideration under the relevant conventions (as are the waterfowl for instance: see Box 1). However, the baseline activities of the Convention on Migratory Species act to underpin the principles of operation for this project. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both participants in the CMS and it is hoped that further countries will be brought on board.

From a policy and institutional context, the countries of the region have joined a number of conventions that support biodiversity conservation and sustainable development (Table 4). All these conventions require that actions and measures be taken at national and local levels to protect biodiversity and national heritage. Compliance with these obligations varies between countries depending on resources, capacity and commitment.

Table 4: Status of conventions in the region

Country CBD Ramsar CMS CITES UNCCD WHC AEWADjibouti x x xEgypt x x X x x x xEritrea x x x xEthiopia x x x xJordan x x X x x x xLebanon x x x xPalestine n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aSaudi-Arabia x X x x xSudan x x x x xSyria x x x xYemen x x x x

Keyx = Ratified or otherwise accededs = Signed only (=not a Party)CBD = Convention on Biological Diversity

12


Ramsar = Ramsar Convention on Wetlands

CMS = Convention on Migratory SpeciesCITES = Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraUNCCD=United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationWHC=World Heritage ConventionAEWA=African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement

Overall, the baseline activity scenario must be described as weak. NGO activity through the BirdLife network provides the most significant coordinated baseline input but this is still patchy in coverage and lacking in national capacity in certain countries (refer annex 4).

Under the baseline scenario, the threats to soaring birds at bottleneck IBAs will continue to grow in significance (inappropriate development including siting of wind turbines, antennae and other tall structures, insensitive management of waste-disposal facilities, oil pollution, hunting). In the absence of the GEF project, the hundreds of thousands of migrating soaring birds that are dependent on bottleneck IBAs for safe-passage between breeding and non-breeding grounds will come under increased pressure. Because for most species there are no alternative migratory pathways, and especially for species that are already globally threatened, this could lead to extinctions. Without a GEF project, government departments with responsibility for natural resources and biodiversity conservation, as well as NGOs and other national agencies, will not have the capacity to respond to the underlying causes threatening migrating soaring birds and bottleneck IBAs. In the absence of this project, awareness of the importance of bottlenecks will remain low; information on soaring birds and bottleneck IBAs will remain incomplete and uncoordinated across the region; policy, legislation and planning mechanisms will fail to provide a favourable policy framework for soaring bird conservation; and in the absence of information, guidelines and models of alternatives, local people and other stakeholders will continue to use resources at bottlenecks in ways which impact negatively upon soaring boards.

9. THE ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO

The project will build upon the baseline scenario described above to build incremental activities, which will ensure better understanding of the migratory system and the key bottleneck IBAs (ecological and socio-economic information), their conservation needs and the management and development options. This will be achieved through survey, analysis and networking of information between countries in the region and beyond. This will be followed through with appropriate site level work based on threat assessment and national to local stakeholder response. The GEF support will cover the minimum incremental costs needed to remove threats at sites, through, for example, negotiation of resource use agreements with local communities and stakeholders, and by covering the incremental cost of making developments (such as wind farms, waste disposal facilities) less harmful to soaring birds. The GEF contribution will contribute to the incremental costs necessary to strengthen the capacity of organisations and agencies (government and NGOs) to allow them to effectively protect and manage bottleneck IBAs, as well as carry out related activities (planning, education and awareness, survey and monitoring, site protection, promotion of ‘soaring-bird friendly’ development). The results of this process will be shared by participating countries through project dedicated mechanisms which themselves will build incrementally upon similar structures within the BirdLife network and the CMS.

At a governmental level the incremental costs of tackling problems that directly relate to bottleneck IBAs and soaring migrants will arise from additional activities, some of which will be intensely seasonal and focussed, within their established protected area networks. The target beneficiary biodiversity will by necessity be transient in many instances and so the ultimate breeding and wintering site owners will be considered as the beneficiaries. Taking action to improve conservation of these species while in transit through their countries could therefore be seen as an “incremental” cost, which would not reasonably be borne by those countries alone, since the benefits of these efforts are felt far beyond their countries. The requested PDF-B fund will explore the best approach and options to attain the GEF alternative scenario building over an above the baseline.

13


Global benefits

By effectively ensuring safe passage at key bottleneck IBAs to migratory soaring birds, the project will, in addition to conserving the migratory soaring birds listed in Annex 1, contribute significantly to the improved conservation status of at least 18 globally threatened bird species, 10 regionally threatened species, 10 species restricted in their range to the flyway, as well as a number of other, globally significant, species of wildlife and plants occurring at those sites. Annex 1 (Table 3) summarises the globally threatened birds recorded at the IBA bottleneck sites (based on IUCN Red List criteria). Moreover, it needs to be underlined that the global benefits of this project reach well beyond the boundaries of the project area (the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia Flyway), encompassing the ecosystems in the northern breeding and southern non-breeding grounds, of which these soaring birds are key constituents.

10. PROJECT COMPONENTS, OUTPUTS/RESULTS AND ACTIVITIES

While the primary focus of this project is the conservation of globally threatened migratory soaring birds, it should be noted that other, globally significant, biodiversity and habitats at the project intervention sites will also be benefiting from increased protection.

The goal to which this project seeks to contribute is the overall conservation of soaring birds and their habitats throughout their range, including the breeding grounds in the north and the non-breeding grounds in the south. It will do this by focusing its intervention on a key and highly vulnerable part of their range – the migratory flyway.

The project seeks to achieve its objective by removal or reduction of the threats that have been identified at the selected bottleneck IBAs and by addressing the root causes that are at the origin of the threats. Each site will have a unique set of threats and root causes, requiring a specific response to reach the desired improvement in conservation and protection. Some of these are really local in nature and need to be addressed at that level. Others may be national or even regional in nature and would require action most effectively taken at those levels.

As said above, the project proposes to take action at threatened or vulnerable bottleneck IBAs. These will be identified in national level analysis of threats at each recorded bottleneck IBA and the project will henceforth focus on national priority IBAs to review the site-specific problems. This cascade through the IBA process from regional to national to local intervention is a critical process within this project. Not all bottlenecks can be protected through conventional means (such as creation of protected areas) and protection at many sites will use other tools as appropriate, such as education/awareness, legislation, environmental impact assessment, and land-use planning.

In order for the project to reach its objective a number of immediate objectives need to be realized. Based on the preliminary analysis of threats and root causes, elaborated at the PDF-A workshop and presented in the previous section, the following Development objective and Immediate objectives can be identified. The Immediate objectives embrace the following project components/strategies:

Immediate objective 1: Policy, planning and legislation Immediate objective 2: Awareness and constituency building Immediate objective 3: Information Immediate objective 4: Sustainable management and socio-economic development Immediate objective 5: Co-ordination, cooperation and communication Immediate objective 6: Capacity

Development objective

14


Globally threatened and significant populations of migrating soaring birds are effectively protected at a network of key bottleneck IBAs along the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia flyway (Rift Valley and Red Sea Flyway), thereby ensuring their safe passage between breeding and non-breeding grounds.

Immediate objectives

Immediate objective 1: an appropriate and receptive policy environment is created in each of the participating countries, that is supportive of migratory soaring bird protection and of conservation efforts at selected bottleneck IBAs. Partnerships between government and local stakeholders are formed to ensure that these concerns are integrated in and addressed by national planning processes (e.g. NBSAPs, EIAs). At a regional level, a strategy for sustainable bottleneck IBA conservation and management is developed.

Immediate objective 2: General awareness and a supportive constituency for the conservation and protection of soaring birds and migration bottlenecks are created at the regional, national and local levels.

Immediate objective 3: Information on migratory routes and bottleneck IBAs (including location, threats and conservation status) is known, up to date and adequately understood and a region-wide monitoring programme is established and operational.

Immediate objective 4: Each of the targeted key bottleneck IBAs is managed and conserved in a sustainable manner, with (where appropriate) benefits to local communities, and on the basis of participatory resource management plans agreed with key stakeholder groups.

Immediate objective 5: Enhanced coordination between projects, programmes and organisations at all levels, leads to improved cooperation, communication and lesson-learning for conservation of migratory birds and bottleneck IBAs.

Immediate objective 6: The necessary capacity (human resources, equipment, skills, institutions etc.) to deliver results 1-5 at all levels (regional, national and local) is created and is effectively deployed.

10.1 Project Outputs

The problem analysis identified a number of factors contributing to the root causes of the threats to migrating soaring birds (see problem tree, Annex 2). Based on these problems, the project will deliver the following outputs in order to remove the threats. (Note that these are provisional and are described at a regional level – not all outputs will apply to all sites or even all countries. The PDF-B phase will provide details to these outputs in terms of timing, quantity and location).

Outputs for immediate objective 1: Policy, planning and legislation Conservation of migrating soaring birds is a higher priority within national policies and plans than at

the start of the project Mechanisms exist for the mediation of conflicts of interest between different stakeholders and interest

groups at bottleneck IBAs The network of protected areas provides improved cover for migratory bottleneck IBAs, and those

sites that are de jure protected at the start of the project are better managed for soaring birds

Outputs for immediate objective 2: Awareness and constituency building Resources and materials required for raising awareness of soaring migratory birds are available Awareness materials are available in a variety of culturally appropriate media forms, e.g. that use

‘pictures’ rather than words (and which can therefore be used in areas where literacy levels are low) There is an improvement in the availability and resourcing of specialist facilities for environmental

education There is a ‘softening’ of cultural traditions that are antagonistic to the conservation of soaring birds Environmental education is given a higher priority, and/or is better integrated into the education

curriculum

15


Suitable materials for the preparation of outreach, education and awareness resources focused on migrating soaring birds, including photographs and biological and ecological information, is widely available (e.g. through establishing a ‘resource bank’ for the region comprising photographs, fact files and information)

There is an increase in the number of people (teachers or trainers) with skills and knowledge of environmental conservation in general and soaring birds conservation in particular

There is an increase in the number and/or strength of environmental NGOs giving attention to advocacy (and with a focus on raising awareness of decision-makers)

There is increased awareness of cultural and religious ethics relevant to conservation, and these beliefs are widely applied in support of conservation

Indigenous knowledge of relevance to the conservation of migratory soaring birds and their habitats is documented and applied

Outputs for immediate objective 3: Information National-level expertise required to collect and analyse data relevant to the conservation of migrating

soaring birds is increased Systems for the storage and dissemination of information on soaring birds are established and

functioning Conservation of migrating soaring birds and their habitats receives increased attention from

conservation and environment organisations and agencies There is an improvement in the facilities and equipment required for carrying out research and

monitoring of migrating soaring birds Methodologies for the study of soaring birds are standardised across the region

Outputs for immediate objective 4: Sustainable management and socio-economic development Information is available to national organisations and agencies on the socio-economic status of local

people and the alternatives (to unsustainable uses) for development Models that demonstrate benefit sharing and sustainable socioeconomic development of ‘bottleneck’

IBAs are set up, operating effectively and widely known and information is disseminated to relevant agencies/organisations. (To include production of guidelines on critical issues affecting soaring migratory birds [such as for wind-farms, sewage treatment plants, waste landfills etc.] that take soaring bird conservation into consideration with regards environmental management aspects).

Patterns of land-ownership at bottleneck IBAs are more conducive to long-term investment and sustainable development, or where tenure patterns cannot be changed, other options are explored where tenure is a significant factor affecting soaring birds

For specific priority sites, management plans are designed and implemented with the participation of government, local communities and other stakeholders.

Programmes of socio-economic development and income generation which alleviate poverty and encourage long-term investment in the sustainable use of natural resources at bottleneck IBAs are agreed and implemented with the participation of local communities.

At suitable sites, ecotourism is promoted and developed in a way which brings economic benefits whilst conserving migratory soaring birds.

Outputs for immediate objective 5: Co-ordination, cooperation and communication Information network mechanisms are established and functioning which support coordination,

cooperation and communication of issues relating to soaring bird conservation Adequate mechanisms for storage, archiving and dissemination of data are established and functioning There is increased capacity of personnel (within relevant institutions) for effective regional integration

Outputs for immediate objective 6: Capacity Conservation of migrating soaring birds is a higher priority for many governments/agencies, and there

is an increase in the resources committed for their conservation Integration of soaring birds conservation into educational programmes leads to an increase in the

number of people with relevant skills There is an improvement in the status of conservation-related careers The expertise on soaring birds that resides in expatriates is transferred to nationals within the region

16


At this stage of project development the project structure described above (development objective; immediate objectives; outputs) is not fully refined in its details, and may be revised during the implementation of the preparatory phase (PDF-B).

10.2 Project Activities:A detailed programme of activities through which the Full Project will deliver the project outputs will be developed at national and regional level during the implementation of the preparatory phase (PDF-B). These will encompass the following main areas: Review and update policy, legal and planning frameworks at national and local level, such that they

provide mechanisms which adequately address conservation of migrating soaring birds

Through advocacy and contributions to national planning processes, promote the expansion of the protected area network to include adequate protection for migratory soaring birds

Implement at local, national and regional levels, a programme of education, awareness and constituency building focused on migrating soaring birds, and using appropriate materials and resources. This will include training of teachers and trainers, production of education resources, and lobbying for the integration of environmental conservation into national curricula.

Develop standardised methodologies for the region (e.g. for monitoring, surveys, and data management), update facilities and equipment, provide necessary training and carry out surveys and monitoring of soaring birds and their habitats

At threatened bottleneck IBAs, introduce changes to resource management and infrastructure design and positioning, and develop alternative livelihood options and socio-economic activities that remove threats caused by existing patterns of use and development

Carry out management interventions at bottleneck IBAs according to analysis of specific threats and opportunities. Interventions are likely to include creation of protected areas, education and awareness, land-use planning, and legislative measures.

Replicate the project through development of tools and guidelines on critical issues affecting soaring migratory birds [such as for wind-farms, sewage treatment plants, waste landfills etc.] that take soaring bird conservation into consideration with regards environmental management aspects

Establish networks, design and put in place data storage mechanisms, and provide the necessary training to support improved communication, cooperation and coordination between relevant projects, programs and agencies

Carry out programmes of training and skills transfer according to identified needs at local, national and regional levels

11. PROJECT DURATION:

The full project will be implemented over a six-year period.

12. SUSTAINABILITY AND REPLICABILITY OF THE FULL PROJECT:

12.1 Sustainability of project results

The project aims to give sustainable results through delivery of the following financial, institutional and ecological elements. Where not already in place, the project, through the outputs and activities described and under development, aims to acquire these elements and therefore the project is designed towards sustainability.

17


Government commitment. Governments in all participating countries are expected to show their commitment to the project objectives through economic contributions and co-financing (cash and in-kind)

Use of existing structures. Working through existing structures and institutions, for project execution, management and coordination, will help ensure institutional sustainability. Personnel and institutional structures will not be created specifically for the project, but through strengthening of those already in existence. This will ensure that when the ‘project’ ends, the structures (skills and experience) to continue project processes are still in place.

Policy commitment. Most of the countries involved in the project have national policies and strategies containing elements of relevance to soaring bird conservation. By reviewing existing policy and legislation, and supporting efforts to fill ‘gaps’ where soaring bird conservation is concerned, the project will help to create a policy framework which supports soaring bird conservation after the end of the project.

Ecologically sustainable management strategies for key 'bottleneck' IBAs (plans). The development of long-term management plans for selected bottleneck IBAs will provide frameworks for local and national planning and development that extend beyond the project life-time.

Increased capacity of Government institutions, NGOs, and other agencies. The increased capacity developed by the project, in terms of trained personnel (for research, planning, management and education), standardized procedures, and equipment, will ensure that project processes can be continued. Moreover, the project will build ‘environment’ into curricula and courses at school and university level, helping to ensure a culture of environmental concern, and a cadre of qualified and interested personnel at national level.

Regional programme for monitoring of bottleneck IBAs. A regional programme for monitoring of bottleneck IBAs will introduce a mechanism (to be hosted within a country institution or a regional organization from the Birdlife network lead by technicians-volunteers from the region) to ‘keep an eye’ on the status of individual sites in the network, and feeding back information to governments, NGOs, conventions and other agencies so that appropriate action can be taken.

Social sustainability - local and national participation. The project will enhance participation of local stakeholders, private sector and NGOs in conservation programs. The wide base of support and participation that will be created will provide a basis for sustaining project processes.

Wide national constituency supporting soaring bird conservation. By building local, national and regional constituencies that are aware of the issues and supportive of conserving migrating soaring birds, the project’s education, constituency and awareness component will create a favorable political and social environment for sustaining project processes.

Enlarged and networked database for soaring migratory birds; Network of programmes, projects and other related initiatives. Sustaining processes and activities for the conservation of species whose movements span so many countries requires an effective network for exchange and storage of information and ideas. The project will build such a network.

High cost inputs through the project. Where high cost inputs are identified as necessary, the aim will be to provide these through this project in order to establish the foundations for a continuation of project processes.

Development of bird-oriented eco-tourism and other economically advantageous conditions for soaring bird conservation. At individual sites, the project will develop economic activities which are linked to (and dependent on) conservation of migrating soaring birds. This will provide an economic incentive mechanism which facilitates protection of those sites.

18


Implementation by NGOs and CBOs. Whilst they still have costs, working through NGOs and CBOs is a cost-effective way for achieving conservation because of the lower overheads of these types of organization. The project will be implemented through an effective partnership between government, NGOs and CBOs, with each organization carrying out activities for which their mandate and resources make them most suited. This will help to ensure the sustainability of project processes.

Project length. The project will be assigned an adequate length to ensure that the expected results are achieved, global benefits are attained, and necessary capacity, structures and mechanisms are in place to ensure sustainable conservation benefits.

12.2 Project replicability

Project replicability will be achieved through capacity building activities that will benefit stakeholders with a mandate affecting soaring birds and bottlenecks in the region. The project will provide a series of working examples relevant to neighboring countries in Africa and the Middle East. These examples relate to all of the project’s main components, demonstrating: approaches to policy, legal and planning reform, design and implementation of education and awareness programmes, development of regional (and national) systems for monitoring, data management and data sharing, participatory approaches to the execution of environmentally sensitive development at sites, the design and implementation of regional coordination, communication and cooperation mechanisms; and development of capacity building programmes based on need and building from existing institutional structures. Each of these components will have principles that are replicable across countries, and also across themes (i.e. applying lessons and experience from soaring bird conservation to forest conservation for example). Sets of guidelines for key issues (such as positioning and design of wind-farms, sewage treatment plants, waste landfills etc.) and standard procedures for relevant processes (such as monitoring, survey and information-sharing) will enable the replication process.

13. COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY:CBD ratification

Djibouti Sept.-94Egypt Jun.-94Eritrea Mar-96Ethiopia Apr-92Jordan Nov.-93Lebanon Dec.-94Palestinian Authority see letter of GEF-CEO of 2nd Aug- 96 to GEF

Council membersSaudi Arabia (not yet)Yemen Jun.-92Sudan Oct.-95Syria Jan.-96

14. STAKEHOLDERS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT:

This concept derives from the findings of a series of consultations, surveys, analyses and workshops conducted at the local, national and regional level. As summarised in Annex 3 and Section 7.1, the project builds on a body of existing work by BirdLife International in the region. This work, carried out at national and local level, mainly by national organisations, has identified a provisional list of Bottleneck IBAs and the principal threats to them. Subsequent work, some of it within the context of the PDF-A for this project, has been undertaken to attempt to fill significant information gaps at this stage of project design. The project approach of working through national organisations has helped to ensure appropriate levels of stakeholder consultation. During May 2002 a PDF-A workshop was held in Jordan. This brought together stakeholder representatives from each of the participating countries (except Sudan). The purpose of the meeting was:

19


To build cohesion among project Partners - within and across regions To develop a common vision and ownership of the project To gather more information on bottlenecks and suspected bottlenecks for soaring birds in the region To build on the existing proposal/Preparatory Assistance Document and to agree on activities required

for the next stage of the project To identify potential co-funding (and baseline funding) for the project

Different categories of stakeholder groups will be affected/involved in project activities. These may include government departments with responsibility for nature conservation, the environment and natural resources (Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA) in Egypt, General Corporation of Environmental Protection in Jordan, Ministries of Environment in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Syria, and the Palestinian Authority, and the Ministry of Tourism and Environment in Yemen); non-governmental conservation organizations; public and private sector communities and local people in and around IBA bottlenecks; scientific communities; and local and international tourists and tourism agencies. So far, from the NGO community, the following have been involved in the project: Royal Society for Conservation of Nature (RSCN) in Jordan; Society for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (SPNL) in Lebanon; Palestine Wildlife Society (PWLS); Yemen Wildlife Protection Society (YWPS); Environmental Protection Authority of the Yemen Government (EPA); Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society (EWNHS); the Wildlife Protection Organisation of Djibouti; and National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development (NCWCD) in Saudi Arabia. The next stage of preparatory assistance for this project would also help identify additional local and national NGO partners (especially from Eritrea, Sudan, and Syria) that are likely to be involved in or impacted by project implementation.

15. INFORMATION ON PROJECT PROPOSER:

BirdLife International will be the overall coordinating agency for the execution and overall implementation of this PDF-B project on behalf of GEF-UNDP and GEF-World Bank. Through its regional decentralized and well-connected setting, BLI will ensure effective coordination of PDF-B activities and for this will establish a mechanism of regular communication and contacts with relevant initiatives/projects and stakeholders for the development of the Full Project brief.

BirdLife International is a partnership of worldwide reputation working for the diversity and conservation of birds and birds habitats. BirdLife International pursues several programs devoted to: 1) targeted research and analysis to identify and monitor threatened bird species and critical sites for the conservation of nature; 2) advocacy and policy development to promote conservation of birds and biodiversity through sustainability in the use of natural resources; 3) field actions and country conservation programs, ranging from community-based land use and management to species recovery programs benefiting both wildlife and humans; 4) networks and capacity building to strengthen global partnerships of conservation organizations and to promote worldwide interest in conservation of birds and the wider environment

In 1994, BirdLife International compiled the first ever database for the region under the publication Important Bird Areas in the Middle East, which calls for the protection and sustainable management as well as the rehabilitation of significant bird areas in 15 countries of the Middle East and Arabian Peninsula (Evans 1994). The proposed bottleneck IBAs in this project are listed among the top priority bird areas in the 1994 database.

The project falls into two of BirdLife’s regions, the Middle East and Africa. The majority of the coordination will fall to the Middle East Regional BirdLife Office, based in Amman in Jordan which has been able to coordinate successful projects relevant to nature protection, promote awareness and policy dialogue, and is actively promoting Important Bird Areas. In Palestine, the Focal Point contributed to the capacity building and promotion of wildlife conservation in various territories through research and monitoring programs. In Lebanon, SPNL was very successful in devoting national and NGO efforts to the protection of natural and biological resources through research, media productions and environmental awareness. In Yemen, YWPS has a series of interests focused on conservation, education for school children, awareness programs on eco-tourism, bird surveys, and monitoring of threatened IBAs. In Saudi

20


Arabia, NCWCD, which is a self funded Association, has a great deal of interest in the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity across the country.

The BirdLife Africa regional support team, with support from UNDP-GEF and the Darwin Initiative, is currently coordinating two continent-wide regional projects (a) to enhance capacity for sustained biodiversity conservation in 10 African countries and (b) to develop action plans for a suite of threatened species shared by two or more BirdLife Partners across 18 countries. The BirdLife Affiliate in Egypt published a directory of Important Bird areas in Egypt in 1999 and has a history of successful collaboration with the Egyptian government. (See also Annex 4).

16. FINANCING PLAN OF FULL PROJECT:

The following is a conceptual preliminary breakdown of project cost:

Estimated total budget: US$ 15,000,000 GEF Contribution: US$ 6,000,000 Co-financing: US$ 9,000,000 (mainly from governments of participating countries,

UNDP, World Bank, in-kind contributions from participating NGOs and other multilateral and bilateral donors. Co-financing figures and sources will be confirmed during the PDF-B phase)

17. IA CO-ORDINATION AND LINKAGES TO GEF AND IA PROGRAMMES AND ACTIVITIES:

The project is in coherence with the framework cooperative strategy of UNDP in the participating countries/authority, programmed in the following areas: poverty eradication, pro-poor policies, governance, sustainable livelihoods, empowerment of women and protection and regeneration of the environment. It is also in line with an updated Bank CAS for Egypt, which emphasizes natural resource management as one of three themes driving Bank lending and analytical work (the other two are human capital investment and science and technology). The UNDP efforts in the concerned countries aim at enhancing national-local capacity and human resource development to achieve environmental protection and sustainable human development. BirdLife International, through its offices in Jordan, Cambridge, UK (and from January 2003, Nairobi) will host the regional co-ordination of this project on behalf of GEF UNDP-WB.

18. PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY:

A PDF-B will be requested for the further development of the project. The PDF-B will be implemented during an 18-month period commencing at the end of 2002. A Full Project proposal will be submitted to the GEF Council in February 2004.

19. RESPONSE TO REVIEWS:

Not applicable

ANNEXES:

Annex 1. Soaring migratory bird species in the Palaearctic-African bird migration systems.Annex 2: Problem Tree

21


Annex 3. IBAs in the project area, which are confirmed as being important for soaring migrants on passage

Annex 4: Information on the national concerned institutionsAnnex 5. The Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme Annex 6. BirdLife network and activities in participating countries.Annex 7. Relevant National and Regional GEF Projects Annex 8. Additional sites that are either suspected as bottleneck IBAs, and whose status will be

confirmed through surveys during the PDF-B phase, or which have been identified since the publication of regional IBA directories (Africa - 2001; Middle East - 1994).

Annex 9. References

22


Annex 1. Soaring migratory bird species, vulnerable migrants and Globally Threatened bird species in the Palaearctic-African bird migration systems and at IBA bottlenecks.

Annex 1, Table 1: Soaring migratory bird species in the Palaearctic-African bird migration systems

White Stork Ciconia ciconia Booted Eagle Hieraaetus pennatusBlack Stork Ciconia nigra Black Kite Milvus migransWhite Pelican Pelecanus onocrotalus Red Kite Milvus milvusHoney Buzzard Pernis apivorus Egyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterusLesser-spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina Levant Sparrowhawk Accipter brevipesSpotted Eagle Aquila clanga Goshawk Accipter gentilisSteppe Eagle Aquila nipalensis Sparrowhawk Accipter nisusGolden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatusImperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Black Vulture Aegypius monachusCommon Buzzard Buteo buteo Griffon Vulture Gyps fulvusLong-legged Buzzard Buteo rufinus Osprey Pandion haliaetusShort-toed Eagle Circaetus gallicusBonnelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus

All species listed above migrate using the system of thermal soaring and gliding – as described in the main body of the text – but the species listed below either only use this migration system for part of the time or are low altitude flapping fliers. However, they are concentrated at bottleneck IBAs and so identically vulnerable. For the purposes of simplicity they are referred to as soaring birds for the purposes of this project.

Annex 1, Table 2: Other vulnerable migrants concentrated at bottlenecks

COMMON CRANE GRUS GRUSDemoiselle Crane Anthropoides virgoSpoonbill Platalea leucorodiaMarsh Harrier Circus aeruginosusMontagu’s Harrier Circus pygargusPallid Harrier Circus macrourus Hen Harrier Circus cyaneusKestrel Falco tinninculusLesser Kestrel Falco naumanniPeregrine Falco peregrinusSaker Falco cherrugRed-footed Falcon Falco vespertinusMerlin Falco columbariusHobby Falco subbuteoEleonora’s Falcon Falco eleonoraeSooty Falcon Falco concolorLanner Falco biarmicusBarbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides

23


Annex 1, Table 3: Globally threatened species at Soaring Bird Bottleneck IBAs

Country International name Scientific name Common name IUCN Red List status SeasonSyria Tadmur and Sabkhat

MuhAegypius monachus Cinereous Vulture Lower Risk/near threatened winter

Chlamydotis undulata Houbara Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened breedingCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable breedingGeronticus eremita Northern Bald Ibis Critically Endangered breedingOtis tarda Great Bustard Vulnerable non-breedingTetrax tetrax Little Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened winterTorgos tracheliotus Lappet-faced Vulture Vulnerable resident

Lebanon Ammiq swamp Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened non-breedingCrex crex Corncrake Vulnerable passageGallinago media Great Snipe Lower Risk/near threatened passageGlareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole Data Deficient passage

Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve

Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passage

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageSerinus syriacus Syrian Serin Lower Risk/near threatened breeding

Palestinian Authority Territories

Jericho Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable breeding

Tetrax tetrax Little Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened winterJordan Aqaba mountains Larus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Azraq oasis Chlamydotis undulata Houbara Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened residentChlamydotis undulata Houbara Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened winterGallinago media Great Snipe Lower Risk/near threatened passageGlareola nordmanni Black-winged Pratincole Data Deficient passageMarmaronetta angustirostris

Marbled Teal Vulnerable breeding

Jordan Valley Crex crex Corncrake Vulnerable passageGallinago media Great Snipe Lower Risk/near threatened passageMarmaronetta angustirostris

Marbled Teal Vulnerable resident

Serinus syriacus Syrian Serin Lower Risk/near threatened non-breedingKhirba as Samra Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened passagePetra area Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passage

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable non-breedingSerinus syriacus Syrian Serin Lower Risk/near threatened resident

Wadi Dana--Finan Aegypius monachus Cinereous Vulture Lower Risk/near threatened unknownAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageChlamydotis undulata Houbara Bustard Lower Risk/near threatened non-breedingFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable breedingSerinus syriacus Syrian Serin Lower Risk/near threatened residentTorgos tracheliotus Lappet-faced Vulture Vulnerable non-breeding

Wadi Mujib Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable breedingSaudi Arabia Jabal Aja and

Northern Ha’ilEmberiza cineracea Cinereous Bunting Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Taif escarpment Dendrocopos dorae Arabian Woodpecker Vulnerable residentTurdus menachensis Yemen Thrush Vulnerable resident

Wadi Jawwah Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageDendrocopos dorae Arabian Woodpecker Vulnerable resident

Yemen Al-Kadan area Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passage


Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageGeronticus eremita Northern Bald Ibis Critically Endangered non-breeding

Bab al-Mandab--Mawza

Larus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Larus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened breedingPuffinus persicus Persian Shearwater Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Mafraq al-Mukha Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passageAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passage

Ta’izz wadis Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passageAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable winterAythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened breedingAythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened passageAythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened winterGeronticus eremita Northern Bald Ibis Critically Endangered non-breeding

Wadi Rijaf Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageDendrocopos dorae Arabian Woodpecker Vulnerable resident

Egypt Ain Sukhna Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passageAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageLarus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened winter

Aswan reservoir Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened winterEl Qa plain Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passage

Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passage

Gebel El Zeit Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageLarus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Hurghada archipelago

Larus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened breeding

Lake Nasser Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened winterRas Mohammed National Park

Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passage

Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageLarus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Suez Aquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passageAquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageLarus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Upper Nile Aythya nyroca Ferruginous Duck Lower Risk/near threatened winterDjibouti Kadda Guéïni--

DoumêraAquila clanga Greater Spotted Eagle Vulnerable passage

Aquila heliaca Imperial Eagle Vulnerable passageCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Eritrea Dehalak Archipelago and offshore islands

Emberiza cineracea Cinereous Bunting Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passage

25


Larus leucophthalmus White-eyed Gull Lower Risk/near threatened breedingSemenawi Bahri Falco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passage

Rougetius rougetii Rouget's Rail Lower Risk/near threatened residentEthiopia Abijatta--Shalla Lakes

National ParkCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Grus carunculatus Wattled Crane Vulnerable non-breedingPhoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Awash National Park Cercomela dubia Sombre Chat Data Deficient residentCircus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passageFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passageSerinus flavigula Yellow-throated

SeedeaterVulnerable resident

Koka dam and Lake Gelila

Acrocephalus griseldis Basra Reed-warbler Lower Risk/near threatened passage

Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened passagePhoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

Lake Langano Circus macrourus Pallid Harrier Lower Risk/near threatened winterFalco naumanni Lesser Kestrel Vulnerable passagePhoenicopterus minor Lesser Flamingo Lower Risk/near threatened non-breeding

26


Annex 2: Indicative Problem Tree

The populations of many, globally threatened and vulnerable, migratory soaring birds are endangered by increasing mortality occurring during their seasonal migration following the eastern sector of the Africa-Eurasia Flyway, due to their increased exposure to a number of threats and a general lack of conservation efforts in this region.

The policy, legal and planning

environment in countries where

bottlenecks occur is not supportive of conservation of

migrating soaring birds and 'bottleneck'

IBAs

There is low awareness of the importance of bird conservation at local, national and

regional levels

Information on migratory routes and

bottleneck IBAs (including location,

threats and conservation status) is

poorly known and inadequately understood

There are few incentives to local communities for

sustainable management and

conservation of key bottleneck IBAs

There is inadequate coordination between projects, programmes, and organisations, and failure to communicate,

cooperate and take account of lessons

learned

There is insufficient capacity (including human resources, skilled personnel,

equipment) at all levels (national, local, regional) for the

effective application of appropriate

management and conservation measures

Conservation of migrating soaring birds is a relatively low priority within national policies and plans

Literacy levels among local people at migratory bird ‘bottleneck’ IBAs is very low hindering use of written awareness materials

National-level expertise required to collect and analyse data relevant to the conservation of migrating soaring birds is inadequate

There is insufficient information available to national organisations and agencies on the socio-economic status of local people and the alternatives (to unsustainable uses) for development involving local communities

Information network mechanisms are inadequate

Conservation of migrating soaring birds is not a priority for many governments/agencies, and resources committed (including finance) for their conservation are inadequate

There is no mechanism for the mediation of conflicts of interest between different stakeholders and interest groups at bottleneck IBAs

The resources and materials required for raising awareness of soaring migratory birds are lacking

Information on soaring birds is not properly stored or disseminated

There are few regional models that demonstrate benefit sharing and sustainable socioeconomic development of ‘bottleneck’ IBAs

The mechanisms for storage, archiving and dissemination of data are inadequate (uncoordinated, not centralised, data unreliable and out of date)

Soaring birds conservation is not integrated into educational programmes so there are few people being trained with relevant skills

The network of protected areas does not provide adequate cover for migratory bottleneck IBAs, and those sites that are de jure protected are not adequately managed

There are insufficient specialist facilities for environmental education

Conservation of migrating soaring birds and their habitats does not receive sufficient attention from conservation and environment organisations and agencies

Patterns of land-ownership (lack of secure tenure) at bottleneck IBAs encourage short-term exploitation rather than long-term investment and sustainable development

Capacity of personnel (within relevant institutions) is inadequate to allow effective regional integration

Careers in conservation and biological fieldwork are not attractive because of low-pay, low-status and the instability of many employers (especially NGOs)


Cultural traditions provide a barrier to support for conservation of soaring birds among some groups

The facilities and equipment required for carrying out research and monitoring of migrating soaring birds are insufficient

Poverty among local people prevents long-term investment in the sustainable use of natural resources at bottleneck IBAs

There has been poor transfer of skills between expatriates, in whom much initial expertise resided, and nationals.

Environmental education is given a low priority, and/or is poorly integrated into the education curriculum

Methodologies for the study of soaring birds are not standardised across the region

Ecotourism, one of the economic opportunities that has the potential to support conservation of migrating birds and their bottlenecks at some sites, is not well developed or promoted

Suitable material for the preparation of outreach, education and awareness resources focused on migrating soaring birds, including photographs and biological and ecological information, is not widely available

There are insufficient people (teachers or trainers) with skills and knowledge of environmental conservation in general and soaring birds conservation in particular

There are very few environmental NGOs giving attention to advocacy (focus on raising awareness of decision-makers) in some countries of the region

There is low awareness of cultural and religious ethics relevant to conservation, and consequently these beliefs are not widely applied in support of conservation

Indigenous knowledge of relevance to the conservation of migratory soaring birds and their habitats is either dispersed, not organised or ignored

28


Annex 3. IBAs in the project area, which are confirmed as being important for soaring migrants on passage

IBA IBA CRITERIA12

PROTECTION STATUS THREATS* MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED

SyriaJabal Slenfeh A4iv State Forest Protection

Zone Hunting Wood cutting Olive orchards Land encroachment

Proposed as managed nature reserve or multiple-use management area by a UNEP task force.

Tadmur and Sabkhat Muh

A1 Declared as protected area

Water extraction Salt mining Tourism influx

Set up a management plan and land use policy

LebanonAmmiq Swamp A1; A4iv Unprotected

Privately owned part of land donated for protection

Educational centre was established for awareness purposes

Agricultural intensification Draining of wetland margins Over extraction of water supply and diversion for

irrigation Overgrazing of marsh vegetation in dry seasons Hunting, disturbance and over-exploitation by

trapping of birds at excessive level Introduction of non-indigenous species Toxic pollution and damming

Formulate land use policy

PalestineNorthern Lower Jordan Valley

A4iv Nature Reserve (280 ha - part)Forest

Agricultural intensification and grazing Forest destruction Solid waste problem from unmanaged tourism

Educational programme and advocacy and policy

Jericho A1; A4iv UnprotectedPartly protected for its Cultural values, old Christian Monasteries

Pesticide use in fields Urbanisation Tourism influx Road construction Water extraction

Land use policy and educational programme

JordanJordan Valley A1; A4iv Unprotected Overgrazing excessive disturbance of birds by human Land use policy and master plan

12 See Annex 5 for details of IBA selection criteria.

29


IBA IBA CRITERIA


activities Solid and liquid waste problems Hunting Rural development schemes Unmanaged tourism

Khirbat As Samra A4iv. Unprotected, Sewage treatment plant one of the most polluted areas in Jordan

Sewage Treatment Plant expansion Heavy industrial area Oil refinery Urbanisation Surface water pollution

Educational Action plan

Wadi Mujib A1; A4iv Wildlife Reserve Construction of highways, overgrazing and change in land use, dam.

None identified

Wadi Dana-Finan A1; A4iv Wildlife Reserve Urbanisation Wood cutting Water extraction Dead Red Canal Copper mining

Land use policy, advocacy

Petra area A1; A4iv National Park Proposed World Heritage Site

Influx of Tourism Urbanisation and rural development

None defined

Aqaba mountains A1; A4iv Unprotected Port expansion, and coastal development for industrial, military and tourist uses

Free zone

None identified

Saudi ArabiaJabal Aja & Northern Ha’il

A1; A4iv Proposed protected areaNo hunting zone

Overgrazing Water extraction for agricultural use

None identified

Taif escarpment A1; A4iv Partly protected as forest and national park

Agricultural development Unmanaged tourism Urbanisation

None identified

Wadi Jawwah A1; A4iv Unprotected Agricultural intensification Heavily populated Road construction

None identified

30


IBA IBA CRITERIA


YemenAl Kadan Area A1; A4iv Unprotected Loss of nesting habitats for nesting birds

Depletion of water tableNone identified

Wadi Rijaf A1 Unprotected Rural development Overgrazing Wood

None identified

Ta’izz wadis A1 UnprotectedProposed as protected area

Lowering of ground water levels due to excessive water pumping leading to habitat destruction

Solid waste problems Urban development and land acquisition

None identified

Mafraq al-mukha A1 Unprotected Illegal hunting Water extraction Agricultural expansion Wood cutting of natural acacia forests

None identified

Bab al-Mandab-Mawza

A1 UnprotectedProposed for protection

Illegal hunting and trapping of raptors Army disturbance Illegal land aqiusition

Advocacy and policy and educational programmes for army and local communities

EgyptSuez A1; A4iv Unprotected Sewage pollution, land reclamation, high-tension

power linesNone identified

Gebel el Zeit A1; A4iv Unprotected Oil pollution, uncoordinated tourist development, falcon catching

None identified

El Qa Plain A1; A4iv Unprotected Planned tourism development; planned construction of powerlines

Currently low human population in the area

Ras Mohamed National Park

A1; A4iv National Park None - well managed national park None identified

Ain Sukhna A1; A3; A4iv Unprotected Oil pollution, high tension powerlines, Industrial development including planned establishment of airport and shipping port, tourist development, land reclamation, unregulated quarrying, solid waste dumping;

None identified

Djibouti

31


IBA IBA CRITERIA


Kadda Guéïni – Doumêra

A1; A4iv Unprotected None known to migratory birds at present None identified

EritreaSemenawi Bahri A1, A3,

A4iv?Currently none; proposed National Park

Cultivation and overgrazing Potential for specialised eco-bird tours; closure of access for forest regeneration practised for past 20 years

Ghinda A3, A4iv? Currently none; proposed National Park

Coffee and banana cultivation None identified

EthiopiaLake Langano A1 None Removal of vegetation leading to soil erosion;

development of geothermal power; growing tourismCommunity-based ecotourism project (Farm Africa)

SudanNo information * These threats apply to the site and its biodiversity generally, and are not specific to the soaring birds that visit or over-fly the site

32


Annex 4: Information on the national concerned institutions

1. Jordan - Royal Society for Conservation of Nature (RSCN): An NGO of international standing devoted to the conservation of Jordan’s natural environment. It was created in 1966 under the patronage of His Royal Majesty King Hussein. On behalf of the Government of Jordan, RSCN has been entrusted with the responsibility of protecting the country’s wildlife and natural reserves. RSCN is the first GEF partner in the Middle East and is the implementing agency of the GEF-UNDP Dana-Azraq project. RSCN's main income is generated from national governmental allocations, donor and public support, and income generating activities belonging to RSCN's socio-economic unit.

2. Lebanon - Society for the Protection of Nature and Natural Resources (SPNL): SPNL is the first NGO in Lebanon (established in 1984) devoted to the protection of natural resources through research, media productions and environmental awareness to achieve sustainable development. In 1996, with UNDP and LIFE program support, SPNL established the first Environment Information Center (EIC) in Lebanon to make environmental information accessible to the public. EIC has become a vocal point for reference information and training services to environmental groups and educators all cross the country. Some of SPNL’s publications include: 1) Wild Mammals of Lebanon 1985; 2) Game Birds of the Arab World 1986; 3) Field Guide to Birds of Prey of the Middle East 1988; and 4) Manual for Environmental Education. SPNL income is generated from national and local contributions, donor support, and member fees.

3. Palestine wildlife Society (PWLS): Palestine Wildlife Society was established in 1999. PWLS is the first of its kind in Palestine to deal directly with environmental aspects such as education on nature, wild life inventories and environmental research targeting high school and Palestinian community levels. In addition, the NGO was the first Arab organization to produce a start up IBA conservation program in Palestine covering regular data collection, monitoring of key habitats and bird species and promotion of IBAs. Since July 1999, the society has been successful in training environmental leaders in the West Bank, and Gaza through educational and awareness raising programs funded by UNDP, Swiss Development Cooperation and the Palestinian Authority. Overall income for Palestine Wildlife Society is generated from donor support and from national partners.

4. Yemen - Environmental Protection Authority (EPA): The project will be implemented in Yemen by the EPA, with the support of the Yemen Wildlife Society. The Environmental Protection Authority in Yemen is an agency under the Ministry of Tourism and Environment re-established in 2001. It is mandated to look after all environmental issues including Biodiversity Conservation. The EPA is presently involved in protected areas establishment and management - 4 sites have recently been established. The EPA is also the government agency responsible for implementation of the RAMSAR, CITES and Biodiversity Conventions. The EPA currently has several branches in major Yemeni cities such as Aden, Sana'a, Taiz, Ib and Hodaidah. The EPA evolved from the Environmental Protection Council that was established in 1986, and which had close relations with BirdLife International (e.g. through the provision of information for the Yemeni chapter of the book 'Important Bird Areas of the Middle East' . The EPC also produced a children's book on the Birds of Yemen (collaboratively with BirdLife)). The EPA is working closely with the World Bank and UNDP on issues related to protected areas conservation and coastal zone management.

5. Saudi Arabia - National Commission for WildLife Conservation and Development (NCWCD): NCWCD was established in 1986 by a Royal proclamation from His Majesty King Fahed Bin Abd Al Aziz. It is an independent agency, consisting of two organizational Bodies 1) Board of Directors and 2) three different operational departments: research, wildlife conservation and finance and administration. NCWCD's main income is from the national government budget allocated to conservation and environment, around $20m annually, and also from private donations by the Royal family and other citizens. The main mission of NCWCD covers conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the country, bird conservation and management, and environmental education and awareness. NCWCD produced several magazines and publications, of which many are directed at children, local communities, and the environment. Recently, NCWCD in association with UNDP has established a well-equipped nature conservation-training center. The center has successfully executed a number of training courses in various fields of environmental protection such as planning and management of protected areas, conservation


biology, biodiversity assessment, environmental education, etc. The Center attracted trainees from a number of countries in the Arab region.

6. Egypt-Nature Conservation Sector (NCS) of the Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency (EEAA): EEAA was established in 1982 as an affiliate of the Council of Ministers to be responsible for setting up national environmental policies and programs including their implementation. It is closely linked to several Egyptian entities and programs to support national environmental agendas, management of natural resources and protection of natural protectorate. Three departments under EEAA are operational (Nature Conservation Sector, Air Pollution Control and Water Pollution Control), of which the NCS handles coordination of national and regional efforts aiming at conservation and protection of biodiversity and natural protectorates. In Egypt, the BLI counterpart office will anchor the undertaking of project activities under the overall supervision of NCS-EEAA and in coordination with relevant NGO partners at the national and local levels.

7. Djibouti - the Ministry of Habitats, Urbanisation, Environment and Territorial Management: This Ministry will supervise project implementation in coordination with the Wildlife Protection Organisation of Djibouti (WPO). WPO is the only conservation NGO in Djibouti with a bird focus. For the past two years, the organisation has been working on networking with international conservation NGOs to further reduce or remove threats to the natural environment in Djibouti. It has recently carried out monitoring activities of waterbirds and their habitats to compile necessary data to make possible Djibouti's application to become a Party to the Ramsar Convention and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement currently in preparation at the Ministry of Environment.

8. Eritrea - The Wildlife Unit of the Department of Land Resources and Crop Production. The Wildlife Unit will implement national project activities in Eritrea. Contacts and capacity development in civil society will be maintained through the recently formed Bird Club of Eritrea.

9. Ethiopia: The Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society of Ethiopia (EWNHS) . EWNHS will be the main national NGO Partner in Ethiopia and will work in collaboration with the relevant government ministries such as the Ethiopian Wildlife and Conservation Organisation. EWNHS - the BirdLife Partner in Ethiopia - was legally established in 1966, and is the foremost Ethiopian NGO concerned with awareness creation and wise and sustainable use of Ethiopia’s natural resources and the protection of the environment. EWNHS established the first IBA program in Africa that began the process of identifying key biodiversity conservation areas using birds as indicators. EWNHS has now identified over 70 IBA sites in Ethiopia and published the first edition of a national IBA Directory in 1996. This was the first directory of its kind for the African continent and was distributed freely to government institutions and relevant conservation organizations. Since 1998, the Important Bird Areas project in Ethiopia has achieved the following results, among others: strong partnerships have been built with Government and other relevant institutions; information on all the 73 IBAs has been compiled in an IBA database and is being regularly updated; exhaustive checklists of birds have been compiled for the South-western forests of Ethiopia; five Site Support Groups have been established; national monitoring guidelines for the Ethiopian IBAs have been completed. In addition, the active involvement of the EWNHS IBA staff in the development of the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) has influenced the incorporation of the IBA concept in the NBSAP. EWNHS also has a strong conservation education programme and publishes several conservation journals.

10. Sudan: Consultations are ongoing with the Sudanese Wildlife Society - a Sudanese NGO established in 1999. The NGO has been entrusted by the Wildlife Administration of Sudan to undertake the African waterfowl Census in Sudan.

11. Syria: Ministry of the Environment. The Syrian Ministry of State for Environment (which has established a Biodiversty and Natural Resources Department) is delegated to follow up on the Biodiversity Convention, and in connection with this the NBSAP for the Republic of Syria was completed in 2000-2001. The Ministry is also cooperating with GEF on establishment of a Protected Areas National Plan. The Ministry is also responsible for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention and has now entered into negotiations regarding signing the CITES Convention.


Annex 5. The Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme

(excerpted and adapted from Bennun, L. A. & Fishpool, L. D. C. [2000] The Important Bird Areas programme in Africa: an outline. Ostrich 71: 150 - 153 (Proc. PAOC 10)

The mission of BirdLife International is to conserve all bird species on earth, and their habitats. Through this, the organisation works for the worlds biodiversity and the sustainable use of natural resources. This is a large task for which priorities need to be set at the levels of species, sites and habitats. The Important Bird Areas (IBA) programme is, in its first stage, a process of setting site-based priorities for birds based on existing information.

The IBA programme was first begun in Europe in 1985 and the resulting publication (Grimmett & Jones, 1989) has been influential in promoting the development of conservation initiatives and collaboration among organisations across the continent. It has proved extremely valuable in presenting clear statements to decision-makers of the needs of conservation and has guided conservation efforts both in knowledge and in the degree of site protection. A measure of this success is demonstrated by the fact that in 1989 only about 25% of the 2444 sites listed in 32 countries had any formal protection; by 1995 the proportion had risen to 50%. In the mean time, an IBA programme was launched in the Middle East and resulted in a directory documenting 389 sites across 14 nation states (Evans, 1994). Here, too, the inventory is already proving a valuable advocacy tool and at least five sites now benefit from formal protection which previously had none.

A similar programme began for Africa in 1993 with the appointment of a project coordinator, and field survey work commenced in 1994 in, amongst others, Egypt and Ghana. One aim of this programme is, obviously, to identify IBAs across the continent and compile and publish a continental directory of globally important sites. However, the process of doing this at a national level should create awareness in-country of the need for bird and wider biodiversity conservation and develop institutional capacity for ornithological research, conservation advocacy and practical action. The programme is thus a means to an end: the effective conservation of IBAs at the national level.

What are IBAs?Important Bird Areas are places of international significance for the conservation of birds at the global, regional or sub-regional level. They are identified using standardised, internationally agreed criteria (applied with common sense!). IBAs are a practical tool for conservation. Sites must, wherever possible, be amenable to being conserved and to being delimited from surrounding areas and be large enough to support viable populations of the species for which they are important. When selecting IBAs the existing Protected Areas Network is, for practical purposes, considered first but additional sites are brought onto the conservation agenda for the first time.

IBAs are one of an armoury of approaches to bird conservation. They are not the whole or the only answer. Some bird species are not well protected by the IBA approach (such as large raptor species dispersed at low densities across wide areas), and for others IBAs may only be appropriate across some of their range or for parts of their life cycle (for example, colonially nesting species which disperse extensively during the non-breeding season). IBAs should form part of a wider, integrated approach to conservation that includes sites, species and habitat protection (Tucker & Heath 1994). Nonetheless, they do have many strengths. They are objectively defined using established criteria, which helps give the results of the process weight and credibility, and means that IBA lists effectively form a global conservation currency. The criteria are simple and robust enough that they can be applied uniformly and cost-effectively. Information about IBAs is generated by the BirdLife Partnership itself. This means that the site identification process can be a powerful way to build institutional capacity and set an effective conservation agenda: it is far more than a technical research exercise. For these reasons, IBAs can be a practical and effective lever for conservation.

IBA categories and criteria The criteria used to select IBAs of global significance are as follows:

Category 1. Globally Threatened Species

35


Criterion: The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern.

A site qualifies under this category if it is known, estimated or thought to hold a population of a species categorized as Critical or Endangered. Population-size thresholds for those species identified as Vulnerable, Conservation Dependent, Data Deficient and Near Threatened (Collar et al. 1994) are set regionally, as appropriate, to help in site selection. The words 'regular' and 'significant' in the Criterion definition are to ensure that instances of vagrancy, marginal occurrence, ancient historical records etc are excluded. Sites may be included, however, where the species' occurrence is seasonal (or at which it solely present at more extended intervals if suitable conditions prevail only episodically, e.g. temporary wetlands).

Category 2. Restricted-range SpeciesCriterion: The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of a group of species whose breeding distributions define an Endemic Bird Area or Secondary Area.

Endemic Bird Areas (EBAs) are defined as places where two or more species of restricted range, i.e. with world distributions of less than 50,000 km2, occur together (ICBP 1992). Also included here are species of Secondary Areas. A Secondary Area supports one or more restricted-range species, but does not qualify as an EBA because, usually, only one species is entirely confined to it. For many EBAs, which hold a large number of restricted-range species, it is necessary that a network of sites be chosen, by complementarity analysis, to protect adequately all relevant species. The 'significant component' term in the Criterion is intended to avoid selecting sites solely on the presence of one or more restricted range species that are common and adaptable within the EBA and, therefore, occur at other chosen sites. Additional sites may, however, need to be chosen for one or a few species that would otherwise be under-represented.

Category 3. Biome-restricted AssemblageCriterion: The site is known or thought to hold a significant component of the group of species whose distributions are largely or wholly confined to one biome.

This category applies to groups of species with largely shared distributions of greater than 50,000 km 2, which occur mostly or wholly within all or part of a particular biome and are, therefore, of global importance. Many of these assemblages occur in places - deserts etc. - where delimiting IBAs is particularly difficult. A biome may be defined as a major regional ecological community characterized by distinctive life forms and principal plant species. More than one habitat type and, hence, bird community may occur within a biome; the set of sites chosen has, therefore, to reflect this. Common sense is used to ensure that a large number of sites each holding only a few of the biome-restricted species are not chosen. Some sites may, however, be chosen for one or a few species which would otherwise be under-represented, such as those confined to, for example, a restricted habitat type within the biome.

Some EBAs and many biomes cross political boundaries; where so, the networks of sites has to ensure that, as far as possible, all relevant species occur in IBAs in those countries where the EBA or biome is well represented. Thus, biomes require that the networks of sites, chosen by complementarity analysis, take account of both the geographical spread of the biome and the political boundaries that cross it.

Category 4. CongregationsThis category applies to those species that are vulnerable as a consequence of their congregatory behaviour at regularly used sites, either at breeding colonies or during the non-breeding season, including at foraging, roosting and migratory stop-over sites. Such stop-over sites may not hold spectacular numbers at any one time yet, nevertheless, do so over a relatively short period due to the rapid turnover of birds on passage.

Criteria:

A site may qualify on one or more of the four criteria listed below:

i). Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, more than 1% of a biogeographic population of a congregatory waterbird species.

36


The term waterbird is used here in the sense that the Ramsar Convention uses waterfowl and covers the list of families as more precisely defined by Rose & Scott (1994).

ii). Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, more than 1% of the global population of a congregatory seabird or terrestrial species.

Includes those families of seabird not covered by Rose & Scott (1994).

iii). Site known or thought to hold, on a regular basis, more than 20,000 waterbirds or 10,000 pairs of seabirds of one or more species.

iv). Site known or thought to exceed thresholds set for migratory species at bottleneck sites.

This covers sites over which migrants congregate e.g. before gaining height in thermals. Although it is the airspace that is important, conservation of the land beneath it may be necessary to protect the site from threats such as hunting and the construction of radio masts etc.

National IBA programmesThere are three main strands to a national IBA programme: compiling the IBA inventory, strengthening the technical capacity for research and action, and building effective structures for advocacy and action.

Obviously, these processes require resources: a national IBA programme cannot go ahead without funding support. They also require that appropriate institutions exist, or can be created, to manage the IBA process. In order to produce the continental directory, information is needed for all countries in Africa and its neighbouring islands, not just those where national programmes are running or are planned. For all countries, however, the first step involves gathering together existing information, both published and unpublished. For some countries a 'desk study' analysis of this material may be all that is possible at this stage due to shortage of resources, political instability, or other problems; wherever possible, however, such an analysis is merely the point of departure.

National IBA inventoriesThe national inventory process is not identical from country to country, but certain consistent stages and themes can be identified. First, the institutional framework and co-ordination must be decided upon. The IBA process is closely tied in with the development of the BirdLife Partnership: where a Partner or potential Partner NGO exists, it is natural for it to take the lead in managing the IBA work. Examples include the Ghana Wildlife Society and the Ethiopian Wildlife and Natural History Society. In some cases (such as Egypt) no local NGO involvement is possible, and the process has to be undertaken entirely through collaboration with existing governmental institutions. Where a Partner organisation is involved, building effective links with Government is an important part of the process.

Deciding on the institutional framework usually implies that some source of support has been identified. Sufficient resources must be acquired at least to begin the process; initially it is not necessary (though obviously desirable!) that funding is also assured for later stages.

Compilation of the inventory begins by assessing what is known, and identifying where the gaps in knowledge lie. Typically, this will involve a thorough review of the literature and a preliminary listing of potential sites assessed against the selection criteria. For this it is necessary to seek the input of as many people as possible who have useful information. Another important step, in most cases, is to hold a national workshop to examine the list of sites and decide where further survey work needs to be done. Involving a wide range of people not only produces better information, but helps to involve them in the process and give a sense of national ownership.

Field survey work is usually expensive and time-consuming, and potentially never-ending (there will always be more to find out!). Thus, it is important that realistic priorities are set and that surveys are restricted to gathering information that is crucial for the IBA inventory. Ornithological surveys are useful for two main

37


purposes (as well as the parallel benefit of building technical capacity: see below). First, a site may be thought to qualify as an IBA but reliable information on its avifauna is lacking: for example, it may lie within the range of a threatened species and hold the appropriate habitat, but has not been visited by ornithologists. Second, a site may qualify for IBA listing based on old information, but its current status may be unclear (does the habitat still exist? are the species of concern still present?). During these surveys other relevant data on the sites may be collected — threats, land use, habitat types, and so on. Visits may also be useful, in some cases, as the initial step in seeking the involvement of local people in the conservation of an IBA.

Ideally, the more information that can be obtained on a site, the better. In reality, time and money are always in short supply. Full-scale surveys can produce much more information than is needed for the purpose of compiling the IBA data sheets. Especially in countries with some history of ornithological work, many of the data needed for putting together the list are often already available. The surveys therefore need concentrate on filling in real, not imaginary, gaps, and on collecting only that information that is essential.

During and following the survey phase, the sites list is updated and detailed site accounts are drawn up and circulated for comments. These conform to a defined format for the continental directory, but extra detail can be included in the separate national IBA publication which several countries are planning to produce, subject to resources. These books are likely to appear well before the continental directory and may, as appropriate, be produced wholly or partly in languages other than English.

These accounts will be published both in a summary continental directory (scheduled to appear in 2000) and, wherever possible, as national IBA books. However, the IBA process is dynamic: the appearance of a printed book marks the beginning of another phase, not the end of the process. To allow data to be updated constantly, and accessed easily, an IBA database has been designed and will become available in Africa during the first half of 1997. Data are to be entered into this database as the site accounts are being drafted and revised.

Capacity building, advocacy and actionIn parallel with the IBA inventory goes the process of turning this information into conservation action. At one level this involves the building of technical capacity. As the history of BirdLife (and that of its predecessor, ICBP) demonstrate, sound science must underlie effective conservation (see e.g. Collar 1996). Well-trained African field ornithologists are still scarce, and the IBA survey and data compilation work provide an excellent opportunity for young ornithologists to gain experience and confidence. This may involve a specialised training course, as occurred in Ethiopia; the building up of a survey team employed by an NGO, as in Ghana; or the involvement of post-graduate students and volunteers through a research institution, as in Kenya.

Strengthening the BirdLife Partner is another important element of the capacity-building process. This has many aspects. Direct advocacy of the IBA programme, and of the conservation of particular sites, requires staff who can co-ordinate conservation campaigns. In the longer term, the Partner NGO needs to grow into an effective organisation that is financially sound, well-managed, addresses conservation priorities and has, through its membership, an effective voice that is listened to by Government. Financial, membership, development and conservation strategies thus need to be set up and followed, and the IBA programme (with the resources that it can attract) provides an excellent opportunity and focus for this.

The link to Government is crucial. Without this, a great deal of hard work may in the end prove ineffective. The IBA programme is a way to assist Governments to set conservation priorities; it provides access to information that is very useful for planning and would otherwise be unavailable; and, for member states, it obviously helps to fulfil national obligations under the Convention for Biodiversity. Every effort must be made to persuade Governments to buy in to the IBA process at an early stage. This means involving Government bodies in the design and management of the process, and ensuring that they understand and have access to the results. One useful approach is to set up advisory bodies or steering committees that bring together a range of Government representatives who are involved in conservation, land management and planning. The consultative process must be genuine, and the advice listened to by the IBA co-ordinator. This is likely both to improve the IBA results and to give decision-makers a sense of ownership of the process.

38


A major goal of the IBA programme is to have IBAs included in national environmental planning. National Environment Action Plans are being drawn up or refined by many African countries; if the linkages with Government are in place, this provides a great opportunity to bring about concrete results for conservation.

Finally, at this stage some thought needs to be given to how the IBA inventory results will be published. A book is one obvious way, but at whom should it be targeted, how should it be designed and what should it include? Decision-makers are an important audience, but in some cases local and foreign birdwatchers, for example, might also be important. A national IBA book, containing details about the key sites for birds, is likely to be of great interest to birdwatchers, as the experience in several European countries has shown. Maps, posters and even videos and multi-media presentations are all possibilities, depending on local conditions and the extent of funding.

What will the IBA programme achieve?Already the IBA work is showing results. The overall aim, the effective conservation of the avifauna, is still a distant although achievable prospect. As the programme moves out of its first, and into the far more challenging second, phase, we can expect:

(i) a complete and detailed list of IBAs, setting a realistic and appropriate agenda for conservation efforts;

(ii) a strong and growing network of BirdLife Partners, able to use the IBA results as a practical conservation tool;

(iii) endorsement, by other conservation organisations and (most importantly) by governments, of the IBA approach as one useful way to set priorities for conservation.

39


Annex 6. BirdLife network and activities in participating countries.

COUNTRY NETWORK ACTIVITIESSyria Contact with Ministry of State for

Environmental AffairsIBA activities under discussion.

Lebanon Partner:Society for the Protection of Nature & Natural Resources in Lebanon (SPNL)

Well developed programme of activities including national IBA information and action at sites.

Palestine Partner Designate:Palestine Wildlife Society

Well developed programme of activities including national IBA information (national inventory published) and action at sites.

Jordan Partner:Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN)


Egypt Affiliate:Sherif Baha El Din


Sudan Contact with the Sudan Wildlife Society (SWS)

IBA activities under discussion.

Eritrea The Wildlife Unit of the Department of Land Resource and Crop Production

IBA activities under discussion.

Ethiopia Partner:Ethiopian Wildlife & Natural History Society (EWNHS)


Saudi Arabia

Affiliate:National Commission for Wildlife Conservation & Development (NCWCD)

Programme of activities including national IBA information and action at sites under discussion.

Djibouti Wildlife Protection Organisation of Djibouti

Programme of activities focusing on advocacy and awareness raising and waterbird monitoring. IBA activities under discussion.

Yemen Contact with the Yemen Wildlife Protection Society (NGO) and the the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA)

IBA activities under discussion.Country programme under development with site based projects at IBAs planned - fundraising in progress. Monitoring of critical IBAs and Endangered Species as well as annual census of Birds. Training young ecologists from EPA in bird conservation and IBA management

-


Annex 7. Relevant National and Regional GEF Projects

1. Egypt-Red Sea Coastal and Marine Resources Management World Bank/ GEF 1995-2000. The project has been initiated to assist in ICZM, EIA and Coastal and Marine Protected Areas (CMPA) capacity building. It has initiated effective conservation mechanisms to maintain a healthy and ecologically functioning status of significant biodiversity for coastal and marine ecosystems along the Red Sea shorelines, with emphasis on coral reefs, mangroves, seagrasses and wadis.

2. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Medicinal Plants in Arid and Semi- Arid Areas of Egypt UNDP/GEF 2000-2005. While this project's prime focus is on the protection of key globally significant medicinal plant species in the protectorate of St. Katherine, some of the activities aimed at alleviating key threats to the fauna are also conducive to habitat protection for migrating birds in these areas. Such activities include grazing management, alternatives to fuel-wood collection and control of off-road tourism.

3. Yemen, Socotra Conservation and Sustainable Use Project. This project has been instrumental in providing participatory examples in sustainable management and development of natural resources. It has successfully developed conservation development plans and strategies and completed baseline ecological inventories related to all components of biological diversity including the ecosystem of the archipelago. A second phase MSP project is aimed at enhancing protected area management capacity in a demonstrative nature protectorate of the island. This project is thereby strongly linked to the vision and objectives of the Socotra project.

4. Dana Azraq project: This project is one of the pioneer GEF projects that have addressed nature conservation in the context of protected area management, building on sustainable use and management of biological resources. Good practices in reserve management, income generation, legislation enforcement, learning and awareness raising, and networking could be transferred from this pioneer project to be applied in the context of the proposed initiative. Similar to this project also is the Lebanon Protected Area project, which provided a good example of national NGOs-academic-governmental and private partnership directed at conservation and sustainable management of biological diversity in three protected areas: Arz-Ashouf, Palm islands, and Horsh Ehdain.

At the regional level, the following GEF supported projects help complement the area-based efforts. These are:

5. Conservation of Wetlands and Coastal Ecosystems in the Mediterranean Region (MedWet) UNDP/ GEF 1999-2004. This project aims at conserving globally significant flora and fauna in key wetland habitats along the Mediterranean shorelines of six countries, Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestine Authority, and Tunisia. Around 15 sites have been selected to be the ground for conservation and management activities including site diagnosis, policy reforms, study surveys and design and implementation of integrated management plans for these protected areas. All wetland sites in this Mediterranean coastal ecosystem support both the greatest diversity and density of bird species

6. Implementation of the Strategic Action Program (SAP) for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (Red Sea SAP) UNDP/WB/UNEP/GEF. Participating countries are: Djibouti, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The project will develop and implement a Strategic Action Program and regional conservation plans for key marine species and coastal habitats including coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves. The region's capacity in habitat assessment, monitoring and management will be strengthened. A regional network of marine protected areas will be established for effective and efficient management of protected areas and to ensure exchange of experience among countries of the region.

7. Enhancing conservation of the critical network of wetlands required by migratory waterbirds on the African/Eurasian flyways UNEP. The project works in 10 countries in Europe-Asia and Africa to support the improvement of conservation status of African/Eurasian migratory waterbirds, by enhancing and coordinating the measures taken by countries to conserve the critical network of wetland areas that birds require to complete their annual cycle.

8. African NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action UNDP/BirdLife. This project aims at enhancing biodiversity conservation in Africa through local and national NGO-government partnerships in the Important Bird Areas Process. Using birds as biodiversity indicators, national teams identify

- 41 -


sites, known as IBA, agree on priorities for action and advocate and monitor their conservation. Regional coordination among the 10 African countries and sharing of skills will be enhanced, and the institutional base and sustainability consolidated to permit the expansion and replication of the process.

9. Gulf of Aqaba Environmental Action Plan – EU/World Bank The GAEAP focuses on environmental management and conservation of coral and birds in the Gulf of Aqaba – South Sinai Governorate.

10. Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity in the Gregory Rift Valley Lakes -- The goal of the proposed project is to enhance biodiversity conservation and sustainable utilization within the Gregory Rift Valley lakes and wetlands through the development and implementation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP), by establishing and strengthening systems of conservation areas or ecosystems at risk, and by combining the goals of biodiversity conservation and production, and promoting various forms of multiple use. Project not yet approved, pending political agreement on project design between the participating countries. Relevant to the conservation of any target bottleneck sites that are included in this project (potentially several of the Rift Valley lakes in Ethiopia are bottleneck sites) and experience in the development of ecotourism at sites, as a form of sustainable utilization.

In addition to these projects, the following GEF biodiversity projects include components of relevance to conservation of soaring birds, either due to their location or some of their activities, and which will therefore be co-ordinated with this project as appropriate in order to maximise their complementary effects wherever possible. As with all these projects, opportunities for coordination and collaboration will be further investigated during the PDF-B phase (see also Output 5).

Project name Countries Implementing Agency Conservation and sustainable use of

Medicinal plantsEthiopia World Bank

Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-situ conservation for sustainable biodiversity protection

Lebanon UNDP

Conservation and management of habitats and species, and sustainable community use of Biodiversity in Dinder National Park

Sudan UNDP

Conservation of biodiversity and protected areas management

Syria World Bank

Protected Areas Management Yemen World Bank Conservation management of Eritrea's

coastal, marine and island biodiversityEritrea UNDP

The following projects in the GEF pipeline are also likely to include components which either complement this project or which have potential impacts on soaring birds and therefore have components which require integration (these mainly concern wind power development):

Project name Countries Implementing Agency Integrated sustainable management of

transboundary resources in southwestern Djibouti and Northeastern Ethiopia

Djibouti, Ethiopia UNEP/UNDP

Second Matrouh Resource Management Project

Egypt World Bank

Private sector wind power development Egypt World Bank Wind energy applications in coastal regions

of EritreaEritrea UNDP

Strengthening the conservation and management of the Wildlife Protected Area System

Ethiopia UNDP

Conservation of medicinal plants project Jordan World Bank Water quality an environmental improvement Jordan World Bank

- 42 -


in the Jordan Rift Valley Integrated ecosystem management in the

Jordan Rift ValleyJordan World Bank

Conservation of biodiversity and protected area management in Jebel Marra Nature Reserve

Sudan UNDP

Biodiversity conservation and protected area management

Syria UNDP

- 43 -


Annex 8. Additional sites that are either suspected as bottleneck IBAs, and whose status will be confirmed through surveys during the PDF-B phase, or which have been identified since the publication of regional IBA directories (Africa - 2001; Middle East - 1994).

Country Site name NotesEthiopia Abyata-Shala Lakes NP One of narrowest parts of rift valley. Importance confirmed for

many other species Lake Zeway Many soaring birds recorded - numbers and therefore status need

confirmationAwash NP Many soaring birds recorded - numbers and therefore status need

confirmationKoka Dam and Lake Gelila Man made dam and lake - 18 soaring bird species occur there.

Numbers to be confirmedLake Langano

Egypt Hurghada Archipelago Archipelago of uninhabited islands. Appear to play important role as a stepping stone for migrants crossing mouth of Gulf of Suez

Upper Nile Appears to be an important landing and drinking site for white storks during autumn migration

Aswan Reservoir With Lake Nasser, appears to be an important migration route for soaring birds, particularly white storks - resting and drinking area

Lake Nasser See aboveSafaga Seems to be an important migration corridor in autumn for soaring

birds entering Asia into Africa after crossing from Ras Mohammed, South Sinai - especially storks but also raptors.

Ein Mousa Probably major route in spring and autumn, especially raptorsSharm El Sheik Status to be confirmedHurghada Status to be confirmed

Djibouti Sept Frères islands Collection of volcanic islands - thought to be an important stepping stone assisting migrants crossing Bab el Mandeb straits.

Eritrea Dahlak islands and Massawa coast

Large populations of raptors observed - needs further survey to confirm status

Hazommo plain Large plain in agricultural area visited by White storksJordan Yarmouk valley Steep-sided valley, several soaring birds species recorded but

status as bottleneck to be confirmedMaghtas/Sweimeh Status for soaring migrants to be confirmedSafi - Fifa Status for soaring migrants to be confirmedWadi Ibn Hammad-Haditha Several migrants regularly recorded but numbers not known and

so status as bottleneck to be confirmedAzraq The only permanent wetland in the eastern desert. Status as

bottleneck to be confirmedSyria Jabal Abdul Aziz Status to be confirmed

Al-Layat Status to be confirmedAbo Rujmien Status to be confirmedAbo Gubres Status to be confirmed

Yemen Al-Mokha-Al-Khokhah, Taiz

Status to be confirmed

Hodiedah Wetlands (Al-Urj), Hodiedah


Nukhaylah-Ghulayfiqah, Hodiedah


- 44 -


Annex 9. References

Collar, N.J. & Stuart, S.N. 1985. Threatened Birds of Africa and Related Islands. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book, Part 1. ICBP/IUCN, Cambridge.

Collar, N.J., Crosby, M.J. & Stattersfield, A.J. 1994. Birds to Watch 2. The World List of Threatened Birds. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 4. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

Evans, M.I. 1994. Important Bird Areas in the Middle East. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 2. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

Fishpool, L.D.C. and Evans, M. I. eds. (2001) Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated islands: priority sites for conservation. Newbury and Cambridge, UK (BirdLife Conservation Series No. 11).

Grimmett, R.F.A. & Jones, T.A. 1989. Important Bird Areas in Europe. ICBP Technical Publication No. 9. ICBP, Cambridge.

ICBP 1992. Putting Biodiversity on the Map: priority areas for global distribution. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge.

Rose, P. M. & Scott, D. A. 1994. Waterfowl Population Estimates. Slimbridge, U.K.: International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau (IWRB Special Publication 29).

Tucker, G.M. & Heath, M.F. 1994. Birds in Europe: their conservation status. BirdLife Conservation Series No. 3. BirdLife International, Cambridge.

- 45 -

united nations development programme · web view2003/05/19 · 13. country eligibility: cbd...

Documents