BLOCK A PDF (Revised Version)[1]
Part I - Eligibility1. Project name: Protection of key “bottleneck” sites for soaring migratory birds in the Rift Valley and Red Sea Flyway / 2. GEF Implementing Agency: UNDP and World Bank
3. Countries in which the project is being implemented: Regional: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia (self funded), Sudan, Syria and Yemen / 4. Country eligibility: CBD ratification: Djibouti: Sept.-94, Egypt: Jun.-94: Eritrea: Mar-96; Ethiopia-Apr-92; Jordan-Nov.-93; Lebanon-Dec.-94; PA-see letter of GEF-CEO of 2nd Aug-96 to GEF Council members, SA (not yet); Yemen-Jun.-92; Sudan: Oct-95, & Syria: Jan-96
5. GEF focal area: Biodiversity, crosscutting with Land Degradation / 6. Operational program/Short-term measure:
OP1
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs: see text in main proposal
8. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:
see information provided in main proposal
9. Project rationale and objectives: see main proposal
10. Expected outcomes: see main proposal
11. Planned activities to achieve outcomes: see main proposal
12. Stakeholders involved in project: see main proposal
Part II - Information on Block A PDF Activities
13. Activities to be financed by the PDF: regional workshop, informal consultations at national level, rapid assessments of birds, bird habitats and socio-economic and institutional framework analysis in each area; preliminary threats/root cause analysis; identification of all stakeholders; identification of potential co-financiers; formulation of PDF B request.
14. Expected outputs and completion dates: PDF B request; rapid assessment reports on each site; preliminary threat/root cause analysis; expected completion: April 2002 (pipeline 11)
15. Other possible contributors/donors and amounts: BLI ($ 20,000), Governments ($ 60,000), both in-kind
16. Total budget and information on how costs will be met (including the Block A grant):
see details in main proposal; GEF $ 25,000; total PDF A cost $ 105,000
Part III - Information on the Applicant Institution
17. Name: Birdlife International and national representations/affiliations in project countries / 18. Date of establishment, membership, and leadership: see details in main proposal
19. Mandate/terms of reference: see details in main proposal / 20. Sources of revenue: see details in main proposal
21. Recent activities/programs, in particular those relevant to the GEF:
see main proposal
Part IV - Information to be completed by Implementing Agency
22. Project identification number: PIMS 1878
23. Implementing Agency contact person: Hani Daraghma (UNDP)/Shobha Shetty (WB)
24. Project linkage to Implementing Agency program(s): see details in main proposal
PART I – ELIGIBILITY
1. Project name: Protection of key “bottleneck” sites for soaring migratory birds in the Rift Valley and Red Sea Flyway
2. GEF Implementing Agencies: UNDP and World Bank
3. Country/countries: Regional: Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia (self funded), Sudan, Syria and Yemen
4. Countries Eligibility: CBD ratification: Djibouti: Sept.-94, Egypt: Jun.-94: Eritrea: Mar-96; Ethiopia-Apr-92; Jordan-Nov.-93; Lebanon-Dec.-94; PA-see letter of GEF-CEO of 2nd Aug- 96 to GEF Council members, SA (not yet); Yemen-Jun.- 92; Sudan: Oct-95, & Syria: Jan-96
5. GEF Focal Area(s): Biodiversity
6. Operational programs: OP-1 (overall) cross cutting with Land Degradation
7. Project linkage to national priorities, action plans, and programs:
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 Jordan Rift Valley and the Red Sea 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 IBAs and bottleneck sites 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.
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 birds migration covering all species and countries in the region using objective criteria for site selection. Over 395 IBAs from the region are accredited priority conservation status by BirdLife International and are identified in the 1994 compendium of Birdlife Conservation Series, No 2. In October 2001, Birdlife International also plans to launch the African IBA book, which is another culmination of 10-years effort on African globally significant network of Bird Areas.
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).
8. GEF national operational focal point and date of country endorsement:
Name of GEF Focal Point Date of endorsement
§ Egypt-Dr. Ibrahim Abdel-Jalil, endorsed WB PDF-A
§ Jordan-Ms. Nadia Juhari, Ministry of Planing, 10 February 2000
§ Lebanon-Mr. Berj Hatijean Director General, Ministry of Environment, 8 July 2000
§ PNA-Mr. Sa’ed Jalala, Ministry of Environmental Affairs 18 December 2000
§ SA-Mr. Abdul-Aziz Abu Znada, National Commission for Wildlife, Conservation & Development 1 November 2000
§ Yemen-Mr. Mohsin Hamdani, Environment Protection Council, 9 May 2000
§ Sudan-Mr. Mohamed, Yassin Eisa, International Cooperation Directorate, Ongoing consultation
§ Djibouti-Dr. Mo’min, Ministry of Environment, Ongoing consultation
§ Syria-Mr. Yahya Owaideh, Ministry of Environment, Ongoing consultation
§ Ethiopia-Egziabher, Tewolde Berhan, General Manager,
Environment Protection Authority, Ongoing consultation
§ Eritrea-Mesghena, Tekleab, General Director, Department of Environment,
Ministry of Land, Water and Environment Ongoing consultation
9. Project justification and 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 numbers[2].
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
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[3]. 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 to 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 herein.
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 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. However, the conditions are less well known and sometimes strikingly different in the southern wintering grounds but recently there have been a number of initiatives focusing on improvement of the conditions for birds in the African region too[4]. 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.