REGIONAL ANALYSIS

OF THE SITE DIAGNOSIS

AUGUST 2001 MWC Publication 03/2001

REGIONAL ANALYSIS

OF THE SITE DIAGNOSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

IGENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DIAGNOSIS

IN THE MEDWETCOAST PROJECTPage 02

IIObjectives of this analysisPage 03

IIIWORKING METHODOLOGYPage 03

IV ANALYSIS OF THE DAIGNOSIS

IN ITS DIFFERENT PHASES Page 04

1.PREPARATION PHASEPage 04

2. THE DIAGNOSIS PHASEPage 04

2. 1 INITIATION OF THE SITE DIAGNOSISPage 04

2. 2 PROCEDURE OF THE SITE DIAGNOSISPage 05

2. 3 FORM OF THE REPORTSPage 05

2. 4 THE CONTENTPage 06

  1. RECOMMENDATIONSPage 09

ANNEX 1: ANALYSIS GRID OF THE SITE DIAGNOSISPage 11

ANNEX 2:REFERENCES USED IN THIS ANALYSISPage 12

ANNEX 3: REMINDER OF THE REFERENCES PROVIDED

BY THE RFU IN THE CONTEXT

OF THE SITE DIAGNOSIS Page 13

DOCUMENT PREPARED BY: NASSIMA AGHANIM ET JEAN MARC SINNASSAMY

I. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE DIAGNOSIS IN THE MEDWETCOAST PROJECT

The project MedWetCoast aims at ensuring the conservation of the biodiversity of coastal ecosystems and wetlands in 6 countries and territories of the Mediterranean region (Albania, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and the Palestinian Authority). It draws on the designation of key natural sites in each country allowing the application of innovative management methods while taking into account complex and varied situations (health status of sites, use of natural resources, decision making methods).

After the establishment of the project team, the first phase consists in making a diagnosis for each of the 15 sites under consideration. It consists of drawing up an inventory, which would constitute a basis of reference with a view to evaluating the measures that will be taken (scientific monitoring, studies, management actions and operations). Cf. diagram “Place of the diagnosis in the MedWetCoast project” (RFU: Regional Facilitation Unit, ToRs: Terms of References).


Diagram: Place of the diagnosis in the MedWetCoast project

It is important to recall the fundamental elements of the diagnosis. They originate from national project documents, from the results of the first Tunisia meeting (February 2000), from the terms of reference suggested by the RFU and from the supplementary guidelines:

  • This diagnosis should provide «square one» of the situation. It is not possible to deal with all the environmental and human components of coastal sites or wetlands. This is why the diagnosis should focus on key components (such as natural habitats, globally endangered species, hydrology, the status of lands, the use of natural resources): i.e. the elements that have a particular value for the site (sustainable value, indicator of the state of health, indicator of disruption).
  • The diagnosis should therefore draw up a health evaluation of the site and provide the useful elements for the continuation of the project. Several project actions are actually closely related to the content and to the quality of the data of the diagnosis. The diagnosis should actually:

Provide basic data in anticipation of subsequent follow up (comparison at the end of the project of the site’s health status);

Identify the environmental and socio-economic problems and issues;

Orient the decisions concerned with urgent actions (protection or restoration of sites), complementary studies (case study on a specific subject) and management (information between departments, establishment of management structures, conflict resolution, work with local people).

  • The diagnosis is preliminary. It is therefore a quick analysis that should not be considered as an exhaustive study or monograph of the site. The duration planned for the diagnosis was generally 9 months.
  • The diagnosis is divided in several steps that were the subject of the terms of reference:

Collection and analysis of existing information (bibliography, projects, grey literature, local knowledge);

Data collection on the field on identified gaps or to check or compare information;

Data organisation and analysis enabling the drawing of the closest possible image to the environmental reality. A state of reference should be defined to allow the illustration of the site’s favourable state and the evaluation of evolution parameters (threats, problems). Mapping remains the preferred tool of reproduction.

Compilation of data with a view to their subsequent utilisation (monitoring, zoning, priorities, management actions) according to formats included in the terms of reference.

  • This work requires the formation of a team of experts specialised in the different useful disciplines and who will be placed under the coordination of a national diagnosis expert supported, in turn, by an international expert. The intervention of these different experts was defined in the terms of reference established by MedWetCoast’s Regional Facilitation Unit.

II. Objectives of this analysis

  • This analysis is part of the preparation for MedWetCoast’s first technical seminar planned from September 17 to 21, 2001 in Zaranik (Egypt).
  • The analysis aims at evaluating the diagnoses to bring out their strong points, their perfectible points and suggest recommendations for implementation in order to adjust the diagnosis and optimise the coming phases.

III. WORKING METHODOLOGY

  • The working method consisted in comparing what was planned (project documents, terms of reference, initiation missions of international experts) to what was done up until July 15th 2001 (diagnosis reports submitted to the RFU, mail exchange between the project teams and the RFU, evaluation mission reports of the international experts, etc.).
  • A grid was established to carry out this analysis (cf. annex 1). It was based on the place of the diagnosis in the project documents on one hand and on the content of the diagnosis as it was proposed in the terms of reference on the other hand.
  • To fill out this grid, we consulted the documents related to the project or to the diagnoses that would help clarify the different points. The list of the documents is available in

Annex 2.

  • Every analysis is dependent on its framework and on its basic data. We are aware of the limits of the exercise. It would have been obviously preferable to have at our disposal all the diagnosis reports, the consolidated reports in particular, and the evaluation reports for all the countries. It would have also been ideal to have contacts with the diagnosis coordinators and the project teams (and one more month!). It wasn’t the case for different understandable reasons (different diagnosis progress reports depending on the countries, unavailability of reports at the RFU, organization deadline of the seminar, etc.).
  • However, the elements of synthesis presented here highlight the gaps, noticed or not, between the projected and the achieved. These possible gaps lead to the proposition, when necessary, of recommendations.
  • Each country is requested to 1- Compare its own experience to the different observations mentioned in this report, 2- complete the analysis and 3- integrate in the work plans the recommendations useful for the improvement of the diagnosis and for the preparation of the other phases. All the observations and recommendations will be discussed and validated during the workshop.

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DAIGNOSIS IN ITS DIFFERENT PHASES

1. Preparation phase

MedWetCoast’s regional and national components were launched in September 1999.

A technical regional meeting was held in Tunisia in February 2000 to launch the site diagnosis process.

The national diagnosis teams were established between June and September 2000.

The missions of international experts took place between July and October 2000 to support the countries during the diagnosis phase.

Other international missions of assistance in the validation of studies were launched in Albania, Tunisia, Egypt and Palestine between February and July 2001.

2. The diagnosis phase

2.1. Initiation of the diagnosis

  • Depending on the countries, the number of implicated national experts varies from 5 to 12, in addition to the project teams. This contributes to one of the expected objectives of the project, which is to build national expertise.
  • The experts come essentially from an academic background. On the one hand, this underlines the implication of the different academic sectors (botany, zoology, biology, etc.). On the other, the risk of expertise that is “too academic” is emphasized in the reports of the diagnoses initiation missions.
  • On the other hand, except for academicians, there is little intervention from other sectors: NGO, experts from other departments, local actors, foreign experts. This acknowledgment does not contribute to the project’s main objectives, which are to “close the Mediterranean circle” and to allow the participation of different sectors.
  • Some experts didn't get precise terms of reference at the start of their mission. The definition and the role of the terms of reference should maybe be reminded of: They constitute an essential contractual element between the head of the project and the expert to check the quality, the content and the expected results.
  • According to the reports, the different experts had little contact between each other or with local actors.

2.2.Procedure of the diagnosis

Several difficulties, quite predictable, were met in most subjects or sites.

  • The level of basic data is unequal (lack of data, old data, data that cannot be exploited).
  • Access to certain types of data was difficult (other departments, "sensitive" data).
  • Access to the field was equally difficult: condition of insecurity, problem in the status of lands, logistic problems (vehicle, boats).
  • Several experts emphasized the "tight deadlines" and the land season that were not necessarily adapted (reproduction or wintering of birds, blooming, migratory species). Some experts submitted their reports but agreed to complete later on their field examinations or to stay at the disposal of the coordinators for any supplements to the report.
  • It was difficult to find experts for certain subjects. The reason should be found (lack of qualifications, lack of information networks, other problems).

2.3.Form of the reports

  • The consolidation reports (i.e. the summary report of the coordinators of the diagnosis as it is described in the terms of reference) have still not been submitted by the different experts. Consolidation of the diagnosis results constitutes an important analytical phase to draw up the inventory, to adjust the studies, to anticipate problems or gaps, to synthesize orientations and objectives with a view to urgent measures and management plans.
  • The format of the terms of reference should be checked. It is essential to acknowledge that the format of the reports (i.e. the typical plan) is a fundamental element of the contracts with the experts. Many of the comments, which follow, result from the absence of sections indicated in these formats.
  • The units should be international (metric system). The authors’ name should be specified and the reports should be dated.
  • The old literature is not always used. Concerning the avifauna study, it could serve as a reference for the different variations or changes in the abundance or distribution of the species (evolution in the number) of the sites in question.
  • The section on methods is not always present. In the absence of this section, it’s not possible to evaluate certain data and it’s not possible to renew the same methods from a monitoring perspective. We advise, at this stage, the use of the monitoring guide of Mediterranean wetlands produced during MedWet 1 (author: Pere Tomas Vives). This guide proposes a framework of thought[1] and concrete examples of indicators and methods.
  • Localisation of the species, habitats and prospections should be specified. Mapping is a fundamental element of the diagnosis. The minimum is to copy out observations and data on existing maps (paper format). The subsequent step is spatializing the data in a database or a GIS.
  • Threats or the factors of evolution (trends, weather factors, ecological successions, different disruptions, human action & uses, intrusive species, etc.) should be specified for each group of species or at least for key species. They condition the subsequent monitoring and the nature of the possible management measures.
  • In conformity with the terms of reference, the management, conservation, and monitoring measures should be specified (nature of the actions, localisation, methods).
  • Similarly, annexes should include the MedWet inventory sheets. These will 1- facilitate the writing of the report consolidated by the coordinators of the diagnosis, 2- provide a basis for comparison between countries, 3- facilitate actions of the coming phases (national strategy on wetlands, inventory of wetlands according to the countries).

2.4.The content

Comments common to the "fauna and flora" components

  • The notions of natural[2] habitat or a habitat of species[3] had difficulties to be applied. It is however essential to specify the living conditions of species (type of habitat, ecological requirements) to be able to suggest management or monitoring measures. The notion of habitat gathers the different parameters important for this or that specie. It is often emphasized that it would be difficult to have everyone agree on one typology. The presence of the dominant vegetation type could be a useful compromise (easier to demarcate on an aerial photography). For those who desire it, a nomenclature for the different types of wetland habitats, based on the structure of the habitats, is provided for in the MedWet mapping methodology.
  • As a detail, we must add that the species scientific names should be indicated in addition to the local or national names.
  • Concerning the species, indicate and complete the different sections: description, distribution, abundance, ecological status, conservation status, maps of distribution and the different threats. Whenever possible, species should be numbered and the areas of the habitats quantified. The lack of quantitative data will pose problems for the continuation of the project.
  • Often, the species sustainable importance is not specified: ecological status (reproductive, wintering, migratory), protection status (red lists, protected species on the national or international level). This phase in the analysis is essential for drawing up priorities for the site (globally endangered species, species of international importance, endemic species for example).
  • Concerning the communities of vegetation, basic information should include: description of the vegetation types, spatial distribution, cover, quality (succession, evolution, problems).
  • For certain terrestrial habitats, there aren’t any existing data, it is therefore recommended to define an adapted nomenclature of habitats (dominant vegetation, structure of the vegetation) that could serve as reference for the collection of data relative to the species (flora and fauna).
  • For certain sites, the mapping of habitats has not been carried our yet. This endeavour has to be quickly undertaken so that it would serve as reference and support for all the mapping treatments (namely the localisation of species).

For the flora

  • There are many advantages to better involving local people in the collection of basic information on the vegetation, their distribution, their uses (economic, traditional) and their problems. Similarly, local people could contribute to specifying the status of certain vegetations.
  • Without the localisation or other information, the lists of vegetations have little interest. The terms of reference insist on the mapping aspects and the status of species (rare, endangered, protected) to propose coherent management measures.
  • In probably anecdotal cases, whenever they’re known, sub-species should be added. Their ecological and sustainable value could be important.

For the fauna

  • Information on the ecological status of species and groups of species are lacking (nesting, migratory, wintering). This information is essential because management actions will be different and will concern different types of habitats.
  • The parameters of disruption of the avifauna are not identified. It is important to determine these parameters since, for many sites, birds represent an important portion of the biodiversity taken into account in the project.
  • For rare and endangered species, specialists do not refer to the different international listings and conventions.
  • Still for endemic, rare, noteworthy and endangered species, certain basic data are lacking: actual state of populations, observed trends, ecology of the species, preferences for habitats during the different phases of their cycle, threats and problems (upsets, destruction or degradation of habitats, impact of uses, water quality).

For wetlands[4]:

  • The demarcation of the site and of the area affecting its "health status" (catchment’s area, canals, rivers, etc.) is a basic element for understanding the functioning of the wetland.
  • The identification and the characterization of water uses are essential elements in anticipation of management decisions (impact on the wetland, conflict of uses, pollution).
  • The data relative to the quality of the water are sometimes very old and lack detail. We didn’t find any information on chemical pollution.
  • It would be useful to focus in this study on species that take in the "health status" of the habitat and which have a value of a particular indicator (aquatic vegetation, some invertebrates, algae, etc.). The status of the species could also include other criteria like their economical value (fish, shell-fish, for example).
  • We didn’t get any information on aquatic invertebrates although lagoons - in particular- provide habitats for a large quantity of species. Furthermore, several are indicators of water quality, are subjected to sampling and others are rare or endangered.

Human activities and the utilisation of the area

  • This constituent is an essential point in the diagnosis. Several important tasks, which will follow later on in the project, are related to the quality and to the pertinence of this study. Unfortunately, with the current state of transmission of reports, we didn’t get enough elements to analyse in this constituent. However, it could be useful to recall or clarify several important points.
  • The importance of this field should really be emphasized. Actually, one of MedWetCoast’s ambitions is to implement planned management methods in a given area. From this perspective, knowledge of land planning, of the decision making process, the role of actors and uses are essential elements. This study is a necessary precondition with a view to an integrated management, with the integration of the decision makers on the one hand and of the local people on the other. .
  • All the parameters related to the socio-economic diagnosis should be analysed within an environmental perspective that is larger than the internal area of the site. Actually, uses that are distant from the site could bear an influence. Also, decisions are generally, not entirely taken at the local level.
  • The process should be based on a participatory approach. Through these methods, we need to obtain a maximum of information and verifications on the field. These methods give credibility to the project’s process by bringing together local actors at the beginning of the project. They allow the updating of data or of aspects that cannot be contented from administrative statistics. They allow the raising of awareness and agreement with actors who will facilitate as much the continuation of the project.
  • The problems of land planning (particularly land problems) seem to be under estimated by the different specialists. Knowledge of the different planning tools, of the projects underway or programmed and the land status and uses are fundamental elements. In anticipation of complementary studies (legal in particular) and of discovering the socio-economic reports during the Zaranik workshop, it is convenient to recall that a particular effort should cover several points, especially:

-An evaluation of the diverse sectoral plans (transport, agriculture, urbanism, etc.) should be conducted within the framework of the diagnosis study. The necessary elements (bibliography, plans, diagrams, projects) should be looked for in the involved departments of the different ministries;