Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme For the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

Revised Version
of the

Special Review
Of
The GEF Supported Project
For the Implementation of the
Strategic Action Programme
For the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden

This report is prepared for PERSGA and is intended for its internal use only

August 2001

1


Table of Contents
Executive Summary
1
PERSGA and the SAP Project
1.1
Objective and Components of SAP
1.2
The SAP Project
1.3
Components Selected for the Special Review
2

Special Review Process
2.1

Summary of Terms of Reference for the Special Review
2.2
Summary of Special Review Process
2.3
Composition of the Special Review Team

3

Issues Identified by the Special Review Team as requiring attention

4

Analysis of Selected Components
4.1
Component 3 – Sustainable Use and Management of Living
Marine Resources
4.1.1 Concept and design
4.1.2 Results to date
4.1.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
4.1.4 Areas of potential success and lessons learned
4.1.5 Suggestions for measures to strengthen design and
supervision processes
4.2
Component 4 - Habitat and Biodiversity Conservation
4.2.1 Concept and design
4.2.2 Results to date
4.2.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
4.2.4 Areas of potential success and lessons learned
4.2.5 Suggestions for measures to strengthen design and
supervision processes

4.3
Component 5 – Development of a Regional Network of Marine
Protected Areas
4.3.1 Concept and design
4.3.2 Results to date
4.3.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
4.3.4 Areas of potential success and lessons learned
4.3.5 Suggestions for measures to strengthen design and
supervision processes
4.4
Component 6 – Support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management
4.4.1 Concept and design
4.4.2 Results to date
4.4.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
4.4.4 Areas of potential success and lessons learned
4.4.5 Suggestions for measures to strengthen design and
supervision processes
5

Conclusions and Recommendations

2


5.1 General Recommendations
5.2 Project Management
5.2.1 The Project Steering Committee
5.2.2 The Project Management Office
5.2.3 The Project Manager
5.2.4 The Project Secretary

5.2.5 The Technical Advisory Group
5.2.6 The Information Management Group
5.2.7 The Monitoring and Evaluation Group
5.2.8 At the operational level, including national level
Annexes
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII

List of documents reviewed
List of persons interviewed or contacted
Questionnaire
Summary of Responses to the Questionnaire
CVs of Review Team members
Proposed scope of national coastal (Profile)
An example of coastal planning that can lead to proper management

3


List of Acronyms

ADB
AIS
APR
CO

CRIPEN

African Development Bank
Automatic Identification System
Annual Project Report
Country Office (UNDP)
Centre de Recherche, de l'Information et de la

CTA
DAM
DEP
DNV
EEAA
EPC
EU
FAO

Production de l'Education nationale
Chief Technical Advisor
Direction des Affaires Maritimes
Direction de l'Elevage et des Pêches
Det Norske Veritas
Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency
Environment Protection Council
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

FR
FTI
GEF

GIS
GMDSS
GPS
GTZ
HBC

Nations
Financial Report
Fisheries Training Institute
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information System
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
Global Positioning Systems
Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit
Habitat and Biodiversity Conservation ( Component of

HCENR

SAP )
Higher Council for the Environment and Natural

IA
IALA
ICAM
ICM
ICZM
IFAD
ILO
IMG
IMO

Resources
Implementing Agency
International Association of Lighthouse Authorities
Integrated Coastal Area Management
Integrated Coastal Management
Integrated Coastal Zone Management
International Food and Agricultural Development
International Labor Organization
Information Management Group
International Maritime Organization of the United

IOMoU

Nations
Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control

ISERST

in the Indian Ocean
Institut Supérieur d’Etudes et de Recherches
Scientifiques et Techniques

IUCN

World Conservation Union (formerly International

LMR
LS
MA

MARPOL

Union for the Conservation of Nature)
Living Marine Resources
Lead Specialist
Marine Affairs (Yemen)
The International Convention for the Prevention of

MEMAC
MEPA
MEU
MFW

Pollution from Ships
Marine Emergency Mutual Aid Center
Meteorology and Environment Protection Agency
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Ministry of Fish Wealth

4


MGP
MPA
MSRRC
NGO
NFP
Nm

Micro-Grants Programme

Marine Protected Area
Marine Science and Resource Research Center
Nongovernmental Organization
National Focal Point
Nautical mile (1 international nautical mile=1.852

NPC
ONTA
PA
PAID
PFS
PC
PCMA
PDF
PERSGA

kilometers=1.1508 miles)
National Programme Coordinator
Office Nationale du Tourisme et de l’Artisanat
Public Awareness
Port Autonome International de Djibouti
Procurement/Finance Specialist
PERSGA Coordinator
Public Corporation for Maritime Affairs
Project Development Facility
Regional Organization for the Conservation of the

PIP
PIR
PM

PMO
PMT
PSC
QDR
SAP

Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
Project Implementation Plan
Project Implementation Review
Project Manager
Project Management Office
Project Management Team
Port State Control
Quarterly Delivery Report
Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf

SDR
SGP
SOLAS
TAG
TF
TSS
UKHO
UNDP
UNDP-PC
UNEP
VHF
VTS
WB
WG

PA
PAPLS

of Aden
Saudi Arabian Riyal
Small Grants Programme
Safety of Life at Sea Convention
Technical Advisory Group
Task Force
Traffic Separation Schemes
United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
United Nations Development Programme
UNDP Programme Coordinator
United Nations Environment Programme
Very High Frequency
Vessel Traffic Systems
World Bank
Working Group
Public Awareness
Public Awareness & Participation Lead Specialist

5


Executive Summary
The Special Review team met in Cairo on the 10th of June,2001 under the
chairmanship of the team leader, received copies of SAP reports and discussed
various aspects of each component and developed a check list of the issues that need
to be discussed with PERSGA Secretariat and the GEF project staff and identified
points that needed clarification. The team then traveled to Jeddah and had general

discussions with officials responsible for the project between 11 and 17 July. Detailed
components meetings were also held with Lead Specialists during that period. A final
rap up meeting was held on the 18th. The draft Special Review was sent to PERSGA
and through it to the IAs on the 8th of July 2001. Comments were received from
PERSGA and through it from UNDP and the WB in August 2001. The Review Team
considered the various comments received and responded to the issues raised. It then
revised the text of the Special Review and sent it to PERSGA on August 15,2001.
Generally, the following are the over all views of the Review Team:
1. The objectives of the program are generally ambitious but rather vague and
identify no specific measurable results in many cases.
2. The program is more than half way through, yet not many tangible outputs
were obtained in the components under consideration.
3. The budget in many cases is under-utilized.
4. The managerial structure has indicated many problems of accountability and
multi-reporting. The absence of an active project steering committee that gives
concrete guidance to and follow up for the project constitutes a serious
drawback.
5. No clear integration is seen among components and very limited coordination
for cross cutting issues.
6. The team did not see a coordinated information system for collection,
integration and analysis of data of various components. Actually, competition
among components is clear in a number of cases.

6


7. The program is generally leaning towards southern countries; yet, the
infrastructure of the program in most of these countries is still in a rather
incomplete stage.
8. There were complaints over budget and time limitations. Yet, it has been

observed that the CTA and lead specialists spend a relatively large fraction of
their time traveling. As stated earlier, the budget in many cases is underutilized.
9. Lack of coordination and follow up of training activities may contribute to
limited impact of training. Training should be carried out with the goal of
producing people who are needed and used on the ground.
10. Suggestions including some changes in management structure, integration
among components, building administrative infrastructure and database
Information handling and analysis as well as exit strategies are presented and
discussed. Suggestions include merging components, establishing a project
steering committee, building a GIS based information system and a number of
other suggestions that may help in reaching the goal of the project.
11. The team suggests an extension of the ICZM component for one year to
compensate for delays encountered. The other three components may be
extended within the same time frame and within available resources to ensure
full coordination of all components of the project.

7


Special Review
1

PERSGA and the SAP Project

The Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea
and Gulf of Aden, 'PERSGA', was established in September 1995. Major functions of
PERSGA include the implementation of the Jeddah Convention, and its Protocol. It
has also been given responsibility for preparation and implementation of the Strategic
Action Programme (SAP).
1.1

Overview of the Programme
Objective and Components of SAP
The objective of the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) is “ to conserve the coastal
and marine environment in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden region and ensure the
sustainable use of their resources”. SAP is an interdisciplinary programme with eight
components:
1. Institutional strengthening to facilitate regional cooperation
2. Reduction of Navigational risks and Marine pollution (NMRP)
3. Sustainable use and Management of Living Marine Resources (LMR)
4. Habitat and Biodiversity conservation (HBC)
5. Development of a Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
6. Support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)
7. Public Awareness and Participation (PAP)
8. Monitoring and Evaluation of Program Impacts (M&E)
1.2
Overview of the SAP Project under review
A project for the implementation by PERSGA of SAP was financed by the GEF
through three project documents: One, with the UNDP (starting December 1998), the
second with the World Bank (dated February 1999), and the third with the UNEP
(commencing May 1999).
UNDP's project covers: Habitat and Biodiversity Conservation; sustainable use and
Management of Living marine resources; Development of a Regional Network of
Marine protected Areas; Enhancement of public awareness and participation;
Monitoring and evaluation of programme impacts; and support for Project
Management Team Cost. The World Bank project covers: Reduction of navigation
risks and maritime pollution, and support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
The UNEP's project covers: Institutional strengthening to facilitate regional
cooperation.
1.3.
Components Selected for the Special Review

The Special Review attempts to determine systematically and objectively the
relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of four selected
components of the SAP, namely:
Component 3- Sustainable use and Management of Living Marine Resources (LMR)
Component 4- Habitat and Biodiversity conservation (HBC)
Component 5- Development of a Regional Network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA)
Component 6- Support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)

8


2

Special Review Process

2.1

Terms of Reference for the Special Review

The terms of reference specified that the Review will conduct a technical assessment
of the above-mentioned components’ achievements against the objectives and specific
activities set out in the Project Implementation Plan (PIP). This will naturally require
a reexamination of the relevance of the objectives and of the project design towards
achieving those goals. The evaluation should therefore focus on:

The SAP concept and implementation design.

How well the project has established linkages between the SAP and
stakeholders in the selected components within the member countries.


The level of awareness and ownership of SAP among policy makers in
the member countries specifically for the selected components.

Actual state of project implementation with respect to deliverables, and

Opportunities and risks regarding the likelihood of achieving
objectives.
As the GEF project for the implementation of SAP is centered around a series of
policy oriented capacity building activities, the reviewers will focus on both the
process undertaken by the project as well as the outputs produced.
2.2
Special Review Process
The review process as stipulated in the TOR was as follows:
1. Review of Completion reports and Midterm evaluations from similar GEF
projects.
2.
Review and analysis of project reports, documents and other outputs within the
four selected components (List of documents attached in Annex I)
3.
Review of the process undertaken by the project team in establishing the
individual working groups and, where applicable, initiating local activities.
4.
A visit of at least five working days to PERSGA headquarters to interview
PERSGA management, Project Management, Chief Technical Advisor, the
Lead Specialists and other key members of the project team.
5.
Email (or where necessary fax or/and questionnaire followed by telephone
interviews) with each of the National Project Coordinators and as many of the
working group members from the four components as possible.
6.

Telephone, or where possible, personal interviews with senior managers and
team members from the three IAs who are directly involved in the
backstopping of the project.
7.
The UNDP Project Coordinator will be in Jeddah for the Review Team’s visit;
(List of persons interviewed or contacted attached in Annex II, Questionnaire
attached as Annex III, Summary of Responses to Questionnaire attached in
Annex IV)
8.
A meeting in Cairo to draft a report on their findings;
9.
Review and finalization of the draft chapters by the Team Leader;
10. Submission of the draft report and final report to PERSGA and through it to the
IAs for review and comment;
11. Finalization, translation and printing of the Special Review based on comments
received.

9


2.3
Composition of the Special Review Team
The team is headed by Professor Mostafa K. Tolba (Egypt) and is composed of one
International Consultant, Dr. Philip Tortell (New Zealand); and Two Regional
Consultants: Prof. Yousef Abu Gedaire (Sudan) and Prof. Mohamed El Raey (Egypt).
(Review Team CVs attached as Annex V).

3.

Issues identified by the Special Review Team as requiring

attention:

In response to the Team's Terms of, this Report focuses on the four selected
components and only addresses overarching issues if they are deemed to be of direct
relevance to the four components.
In this respect, the Team during its extensive review of programme/project
documentation, and the discussions held with project personnel and others as well as
responses received to the Questionnaire that was sent out to almost all concerned, the
following issues were identified (in no particular order) as requiring attention.
a) Overall Guidance and Approach
 Project Documents provide insufficient guidance and require interpretation.
 Objectives are not always clear and they seem to keep “developing” e.g. a part
of Monitoring and Evaluation training course by UNDP, objectives were
reviewed and expected to require still further review - almost 2 years into the
project.
 PIP is considered as just another guide – not fixed direction; Component
Action Plans are more precise.

UNDP serves as gateway for the three IAs.– less effective since Programme
Officer is based in Riyadh.

Region has been segregated into north and south in the eyes of many. This
needs to be carefully reviewed. We are not suggesting here that it needs to be an equal
sharing of the money. We are simply looking at the REGIONAL perspective and
recognizing that each country has its own characteristics and circumstances and each
is a participant to this project.

Resource mobilization unsuccessful. PERSGA needs more outreach to donor
community. Lead specialists, being close to what is needed, should take some
initiatives


Programme does not yet have an exit strategy – any plans on how to transform
it into operational activities owned by PERSGA and the Governments. Must
distinguish between PERSGA sustainability as an organization; and the sustainability
of the SAP and its products. Safeguarding the investment made.

No Monitoring and Evaluation of the Programme has been undertaken as yet –
designs being developed. But, defining results and impacts and indicators seen as a
difficult task especially for capacity building. NPCs trained in monitoring, sent in
reports on progress as requested, but no feedback.

This seems to be complicated by the fact that the IAs, PERSGA and the
Governments are seen to have a different view of what the results should be.
b) Project Management – Roles and Responsibilities

10




It is not clear if the Task Force is performing according to TORs, and the role
of the CTA in this respect.

No Project Steering Committee - Task Force does not seem to be very
effective.
 Position of CTA requires further consideration, particularly regarding reporting
lines – in parallel to PERSGA and to IAs rather than PM
 Terminology has created difficulties – CTA, LS, Task Force; Pre-Assessment
Survey, Model Studies -crept into ICZM
 NFP (unpaid) and National Project Coordinator (paid) are they working in

harmony? WG members unpaid so attempt to sign them on as many contracts as
possible to make it up. Relation to NFP or NPC unclear.
 NPC operates an inter-component coordination function, but no intersectoral
coordination at all – in fact there is competition
 NPC has no reporting relationship with NFP or Task Force member, even
though he is supposed to work through NFP
 Too many consultants hired. This is clear from analysis of the expenditures of
years 2000 and 2001 for the components under consideration. One international
consultant was hired at $50,000.Component 4(HBC) consultants are estimated in
the revised SAP to amount to 59% of the total estimated budget.
c) Project Personnel
 Project personnel selection criteria not clear. It may be politically and
geographically correct, but perhaps at the expense of technical expertise and
management capability.
 Lead Specialists are too technically oriented to do proper management and too
involved with management to do technical work such as training, etc. Some Lead
Specialists lacked capacity – required training. Pay is in region of $4000/month –
equivalent to Assoc Prof at University. At this level, they should not have
required training. Capacity building for project management has absorbed a lot of
funds.
 The Review Team would have preferred choosing candidates with managerial
capacities for these positions. Any additional scientific expertise and technical
input needed can always be obtained through well-defined consultancies in
addition to the assistance by members of the TAG. The position of LSs should be
renamed ’component coordinator” and the incumbents given training in
management, coordination, budgeting, etc. If this is accepted, all reference to LS
should be changed to Component Coordinator.
 Some LSs feel that they do not have enough Team spirit – individuals working
in neighboring rooms – ignoring the mutual benefits to be made by working
together. May be scientists/specialists are not the best communicators,

collaborators
 On the other hand, stakeholder view is that they do cooperate as a team
 CTA has been a good listener and a good source of advice but seems to be not
fully able to bring the team together as a team – interaction is missing. One
stakeholder feels that the CTA did not allow LSs sufficient flexibility.
 New PM committed to integration but perceived by LSs to lack background in
the Project – Lead Specialists are not aware of the relative ToRs of the CTA and
the PM – confused about the relative roles.

11


d) Project Activities
 Counterproductive duplication and overlap between MPA and HBC
components
 No plans or intention to relate and cooperate on parallel activities such as
training, data gathering, GIS, survey methodologies, etc
 HBC lacks tangibles – merely identification and recording of situation – no
activities for the conservation of biological diversity
 LMR does not propose management measures – data collection, and stock
assessment at most. There is no application of such data to manage the resources
in the form of determining maximum sustainable yields, seasonal catch maxima,
transferable quotas, closed seasons, mesh sizes, etc.
 LMR intends to press ahead with its own discrete data management system, in
parallel with PERSGA database
 All components give the impression that they are just collecting data and
preparing for something – whatever it is
 The fixation on data collecting is unfortunately not accompanied by any
information management strategies, certainly not unified ones.
 The MPAs were selected and the navigation risk management activities were

set, both without any comprehensive survey
 ICZM went through a bad patch with a dysfunctional Lead Specialist – seems
OK now but there is a lot to catch up.
 ICZM component seems designed without real consideration of what is
required by INTEGRATED

Need for in-house legislation expertise identified and a need for more attention
to socio-economic aspects
 Some duplication, potential inconsistencies and mixed signals from other GEF
projects in the same countries, in the same vicinity – especially in Yemen, for
ICZM and for MPAs
e) Project Products
 Not many tangible deliverables planned; those that should be obtained are
either behind schedule or victims of lack of communication and outreach
 Studies and reports have not been circulated (stay on shelves)
 Publications are refereed, but no Editorial Board yet
 Some consultants have published material obtained through the project
activities, as if it was their own work, with little or no recognition of GEF,
PERSGA or the national experts
 Time remaining needs to be utilized in an extremely careful way to obtain
programme products or at least, most of them
f) Training
 Very little real training undertaken and, what has been undertaken, has not
benefited all participating countries
 No clear indication of the criteria required in the trainees for each training
course

12



No “guarantee”, and not much effort either by the LSs, to protect the
investment being made in individuals who are trained, often at a cost of up to
$5000 or more. This means that, there does not seem to be any follow up of how
much did the trainees benefit from the training and how much did his/her country
benefit from him.
 Training, survey, etc, sessions seem to be extravagantly funded.
 Most components have either no real action or just more and more training.
There may well be “training fatigue” setting in
 There are problems at National level with getting the right people, or even the
right agencies for activities such as training

4

Analysis of Selected Components

In view of all the above general analysis, the Special Review Team presents the
following selected components analysis and recommendations.
4.1 Component 3 – Sustainable Use and Management of Living Marine
Resources
4.1.1 Concept and design
The SAP project addresses problems related mainly to widespread habitat destruction
and no-sustainable use of Living Marine Resources. Many of the threats are related to
the lack of planning and management of developments, limited use of Environmental
Impact Assessment procedures in making investment decisions and inadequate
enforcement of existing laws. Living Maine Resources need to be managed
effectively so that their long-term sustainable use is assured. Increased public
awareness about the value of the marine environment will promote habitat and
resource conservation. With this in the background the following major issues have

been identified in the Project Document:
1. Lack of information on trans-boundary stocks.
2. Inadequate data on benthic and demersal stocks,
3.Unregulated exploitation of high profile species, especially sharks and lobsters.
4. Lack of co-operation in management of shark stocks.
5.Lack of training in collection of fisheries data.
6. Lack of public awareness in sustainable use of Living Marine Resources
7. Lack of surveillance and enforcement in fishery regulation
8. Shrimps and fish farming resulting in environmental degradation and lack of
monitoring.
The designed outputs were the following: (Note - they did not include any activity
related to the inadequate data on benthic and demersal stocks). The outputs are
summarized in the following:
Output 1: Capacity building for sustainable management:
a) Selection of sub-regional LMR Research and Training Centers.
b) LMR-Working Group Meetings.
Output 2: Development of a sustainable management strategy:
a) Develop standardized methods for data collection, analysis and presentation.
b) Initiate contacts with FAO for LMR species Identification Guide.
c) Assess trans-boundary stocks of pelagics.
d) Assess stocks of commercially exploited marine invertebrates.
e) Assess Ornamental fish stocks and aquarium trade.
f) Co-operate with PAPLS to develop PA programmes for fishing communities.
g) Seek funds for monitoring, control and surveillance proposals.

13


Output 3: Establishing the Legal and Policy framework for conservation and
management for LMR:

a) Develop region protocol on trans-boundary stocks.
b) Consolidate national regulations on management of LMR.
c) Arrangement on Regional Fisheries-Monitoring, Control and Surveillance.
d) Investigate procedures for integration of fisheries in ICZM.
e) LMR-LS and LMR's field visits.

4.1.2 Results to date
The component has undergone a delay and accordingly not many tangible
deliverables that match with the expectations have been achieved. However, some
activities that serve as pre-requisites to sustainability have been made. Those are
summarized in the following:
1. Report Preparation:
a) A report on the "Status of Living Marine Resources in the Red Sea and Gulf of
Aden region and their Management, to provide fisheries managers with the most upto-date information on fisheries in the region.
b) A report on "Stock Assessment and Management of Trans-boundary fish and
shellfish stocks in the PERSGA region".
c) A report on "Funding proposal in support of improved monitoring, control and
surveillance of fisheries in the PERSGA region".
2. Collection of Data:
a) Shark landing records have been grouped together so as to disaggregate the data in
pursuit of reliable information on collected species.
b) Realization that country reports show that current systems for collecting statistical
data from fish catches vary considerably from country to country. Thus, through LMR
WG, the SAP is standardizing data formats and methodology of data collection as a
first step towards obtaining governments' approval and commitment to provide the
necessary information.
3. Training and Capacity Building
a) An assessment of training needs for regional capacity building in LMR
management was carried out. Twenty scientists were trained on shark identification
methods

and
biological
measurements
for
stock
assessment:
b) Fifty-three numerators and scientists were also trained.
c) The Marine Sciences and Resources Research Center (MSRRC) and the Fisheries
Training Institute (FTI) in Aden were identified as suitable to become a sub-regional
LMR Research and Training Center. The processes of up grading the facilities of this
Center are currently going on.
4. Pilot Programme for Sustainable Fisheries
In order to replace destructive fishing gear presently in use, specifications for lobster
traps were prepared. Details of shark hooks and long lines to replace the gill nets
presently used for shark fishing have been prepared for demonstration purposes as
examples of non-destructive gear.

4.1.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
Effectiveness of Implementation and Management Though the Lead Specialist has
indicated that the implementation has always been focused on collection, assessment
and management, yet the findings have proved that the achievements attached to
14


Management are almost lacking. Assessment and Collection, which are in a relatively
better situation, require further follow-up and refinement to achieve the required
success. In the following is a summary of the activities already enlisted on the output
list which have not been executed or not exactly matching the SAP plans:
(The general remarks on training in Section 3 of this report apply to all four selected
components including LMR.)

1. Capacity Building for Sustainable Management: A second sub-regional LMR
Research and Training Center, has not yet been selected nor named.
2. Development of a Sustainable Management Strategy: A general observation is that
all the expected outputs do not lead automatically to a strategy. However the Special
Review Team is presenting here what happened to the outputs as described in the
project documents.
a) A Manual on developed standardized methods for data collection analysis and
presentation is not yet produced.
b) Field survey to be incorporated in LMR species Identification Guide is not yet
carried out nor support from non-GEF resources for this purpose secured.
c) Within the framework of assessment of trans--boundary stocks, pelagic fish not
tackled except for concentration on sharks. The relevant activities and
experimentation not carried out awaiting support from non-GEF resources.
d) Stock assessment, exploitation pressures, economics and management not yet
undertaken. Further support from non-GEF resources not secured.
e) The activities highlighted in the PIP for assessment of ornamental fish stocks are
not carried out.
f) Required funds for monitoring, control and surveillances proposals are not made
available yet.
3. Establishing the Legal and Policy Framework for Conservation and Management
for LMR:
a) Neither revision of current national legislation and regional agreement on
exploitation has been reviewed nor a workshop to drafting regional agreements and
protocols for sustainable use of trans-boundary stocks and protection of threatened
and endangered species been made.
b) Regulations on various fishery aspects, consolidation and control procedures in line
with regional agreements and protocols not yet attempted.
c) Fisheries surveillance, control and monitoring systems not yet reviewed nor
upgraded. Associated self-financing mechanisms and consultants not yet considered.
d) Those procedures that focus on development and management on the context of

ICZM planning and interaction between fisheries and other sectors that need to be
conducted in close co-ordination with ICZM component are not satisfactorily made.
In addition to the above, we wish to make reference to the following points:
1. Promotion of awareness among fishermen, community, policy and decision makers
all over the region is important and exploration of various means for doing
so are highly recommended. Attention to the mechanisms for monitoring and efforts
to resolve conflicts amongst groups is highly important.
2. The support expected from non-GEF resources to help with the production of the
Species Identification Guide, Assessment of Trans-boundary stocks and Invertebrate
Stock Studies has not materialized for the execution of these.
4.1.4, 4.1.5 Lessons learned and Suggestions for measures to strengthen design
and supervision processes

15


Beside giving Management its appropriate status throughout, special consideration for
establishment of a mechanism for sustainability is to be taken into account. In this
respect, a number of aspects are proposed for consideration by the PERGSA, and its
Council of Ministries:
a) Encouragement of interagency cooperation in the region.
b) Formation of a Commission for Fisheries that include as members PFRSGA,
Organizations like FAO, IFAD, Stakeholders and others.
c) Establishment of Fisheries Database.
d) Establishment of GIS for LMR for specific species.
e) At the local level there is a need for offering incentives to those who currently offer
their services on voluntary basis.
f) More regional involvement of countries of the region.
4.2
Component 4 - Habitat and Biodiversity Conservation (HBC)

4.2.1 Concept and design
The Red Sea and Gulf of Aden contain some of the world's most important coastal
and marine habitats and species communities. There is a wide variety of coral reef
types in the Red Sea with a structure complexity. The number of species confined to
the region and found nowhere else is extremely high. Key habitats that need attention
are coral reefs, sea grass beds and mangroves; taxa of concern are reef fishes, sea
turtles, seabirds and marine mammals. With this in the background the following
major issues have been identified in the Project Document.
a) Habitat destruction through unplanned coastal development.
b) Habitat destruction through extensive dredging and filling.
c) Deterioration and destruction of coral reefs.
d) Deterioration and destruction of mangroves.
e) Deterioration and destruction of sea grass beds.
f) Threats to marine turtles, seabirds and marine mammals.
g) Loss of biological diversity.
h) Lack of public awareness
i) Lack of monitoring.
The expected outputs of this component include:
Output 1: Capacity building for habitat and biodiversity conservation:
a) Training; b) Regional reference collection and c) Public awareness
Output 2: Development of a regional conservation plan for Turtles, seabirds and
marine mammals: a) Survey and training; b) Conservation plan and public
participation and c) Pilot relief projects
Output 3: Development of a regional conservation plan of key Habitats: Mangroves,
sea grass beds and coral reefs: Control of destructive activities.
Output 4: Establishing the legal and policy framework for conservation of habitat and
biodiversity: Regional agreements and protocols.
4.2.2 Results to date
The component is running behind scheduled time and the activities on biodiversity
conservation so far lack tangibles and they are more or less confined to identification

and recording of situation. Those activities listed below serve as introductory phases
that form bases for concrete tangibles to follow:
1. Preparation of a Guide on "Standard Survey Methods" as an outcome of a
workshop, which is now used as the standard for all survey methods in the region

16


particularly for various habitats.
2. Training of Eighteen Scientists on "Reef check Methodology" with reference to
survey basis, site selection, transects, species identification, data
transfers and analysis etc.
3. Training on "Marine Turtle Conservation" for seventeen regional specialists was
organized under the theme " Standard Survey Methods for Marine Turtles" (Again
the general comments on training apply here).
4. Subsequent to the Workshop organized by ROPME, PERSGA and the National
Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development on the "Effects and Impacts
of coral bleaching in the Arabian region", the HBC prepared the document entitled,
"Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Coral Reefs in the Arabian Seas
Region, that provides a set of priority actions for the conservation and ecologically
sustainable development of the coral reefs in the region.
5. Draft of a Manual on Standard Methodology is almost ready and will be available
before the end of this year.
4.2.3 Effectiveness of implementation, design and management
Contrary to the judgment of the Lead Specialists, tangible results have not been
achieved and what has been executed so far does not go beyond identification and
recording of situation. With reference to the output list, one can identify the activities,
which have not been partially or totally undertaken. These are:
1. Capacity building for habitat and biodiversity conservation:
a) Training courses on survey and monitoring methodologies of key resources and key

taxa in order to achieve conservation and, where appropriate, sustainable use of these
have not gone far.
b) No reference collection of coastal and marine plant and animal species been
established nor a suitable site for regional collection identified for highest
professional standards in maintenance and management for training managers and
technicians. Support from non-GEF resources is not yet secured.
2. Development of a regional conservation plan for turtles, Seabirds and marine
mammals.
a) Seasonal surveys including migration routes, nesting and feeding areas not
conducted.
b) Formal and on-the-job training of biologists and education land training of coastal
communities in the protection and active involvement in the surveillance and
monitoring schemes not conducted.
c) Relief projects have not gone far and improving access to national and regional
markets not yet assessed.
3. Development of a regional conservation plan of key habitats: mangroves, sea
grass beds and coral reefs.
a) The said regional workshop on habitat conservation and key habitat integration
with coastal zone management and co-ordination of activity with components on MPA
and ICZM not yet achieved.
b) Surveys on status of mangroves to develop regional framework for sites-specific,
mangrove-associated fauna and the consequent protection programme and
rehabilitation programme, establishing nurseries and replantation schemes not
yet established.
c) Mapping of sea grass beds, survey of diversity and biomass of associated fauna not

17


conducted.

d) Legislation and practice of construction work reviewing and subsequent
development of a mechanism of control and monitoring of the activities with regard to
conservation of mangroves, sea grass beds and coral reefs not yet achieved.
4. Establishing the legal and policy framework conservation of habitats and
biodiversity.
The present national legislation and regional agreements on conservation of habitats
and biodiversity not yet reviewed. A regional protocol on biological diversity and
special protected areas jointly with ROPME and supported by the EU and Gulf Cooperation Council not yet prepared.
4.2.4 Lessons learned and Suggestions for measures to strengthen the
Component
 The Lead Specialist believes that in spite of the delay in the start of the
implementation, they will manage to execute the outputs on time if
topping of funds of GEF from non-GEF resources is secured. This does
not seem to be feasible within the remaining time frame. Perhaps a
trimming down of the expected outputs to a realistic level could lead to
reasonable success.
 The duplication and overlap between most of the activities in this
component and those of component 5 on "Development of a Regional
Network of Marine Protected Areas" justify merging the two
components into one component, (Habitat and Biodiversity
Conservation including Marine Protected Areas).

4.3. Component 5 – Development of a Regional Network of Marine Protected
Areas
4.3.1. Concept and Design
The objective of the component is to conserve all ecosystems of the Red Sea and Gulf
of Aden; through establishment of a network of all major biogeographical subunits
and major habitat types within each subunit. The target objectives are (PIP 23):
1. Establishment of a regional network of experts specialized in MPA planning
and management.

2. Increased human capacity in MPA management through regional training and
exchange programmes.
3. Completion of site specific management plans supported by detailed habitat
biodiversity and resource use surveys, and public consultation.
4. Commitments from the respective governments.
5. Effective implementation of a network of representative MPAs.
6. Establishment of a process of regular regional review meetings with exchange
of data, information and management expertise.
4.3.2. Results to date
The results produced as indicated by the lead specialist include:

A Basic Regional Training course for capacity building
for managers has been carried out in Nov.2000 for 4 days. Sixteen participants
have attended. The training provided to the team with insight into the role and
function of MPAs.
18



MPA experts in the region have been identified and a
network of 12 managers and rangers has been established.

A survey design for the proposed MPA has been
presented by an international consultant (Jeremy Kemp; April 2001)

A regional draft Master Plan has been presented by an
international consultant (Gladstone, June 5,2001)

National governmental focal points are identified in
spite of internal lack of coordination in some of the countries.

The documents produced include:
1. A survey design for Proposed Marine Protected Areas (J. Kemp, April 2001)
2. A Regional Master Plan for Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Regional Network of
Marine Protected Areas (W. Gladstone, Jan. 2001 and a revised form June
2001).
3. A work plan for the period 2000-2003 and training plan through 2003. The
work plan includes five outputs:
5.1-Regional capacities enhanced
5.2-Regional Master plan developed
5.3-Site specific master plans developed
5.4-Site specific Master plans implemented
5.5-Regional Network of Representative MPAs implemented.
The training plan includes training of managers, scientists and rangers. The total
suggested cost of training is $334,000.
Comments:
Work Plan and Training Plan
1. Capacity building has to be carried out through on job training. It should not
continue until the end of the project 2003
2. Procurement of communication facilities and equipment should be established
in early phases, so as to allow for on job training and save renting equipment
during training.
3. Priorities of implementation must be established before starting
implementation. Implementation should be phased to allow for experience in
one case to help facilitate next case.
4. Reporting of implementation should be carried out at least twice/year.
5. Integration with other components should be carried out as early as possible.
6. It is estimated that the training average cost is $6250/manager,$6250/scientist
and between $1000-2500 / ranger. Training expenses for scientists and
managers is seen to be very high. Unless this training is on job training and is
meant to produce results for surveys, it is seen unjustifiable.

7. Training on awareness should be carried out in close coordination with Habitat
and Biodiversity and with the Public Awareness component.
Survey Design of MPAs
1. The need for a large scale monitoring survey by remote sensing has been well
recognized, yet no consideration of establishing such facility for monitoring
changes has been used. These systems are now available on personal
computers.

19


2. No effective survey and assessment of all MPAs considered in the region.
There may be other undiscovered areas not known to the nationals.
3. No survey has been carried out for anthropogenic threats, and vulnerability.
Master Plan
The Master Plan includes an adaptation of the international guidelines for the
establishment and management of MPAs to the regional conditions. Existing
management plans in the region are reviewed and relevant features incorporated. The
policies and strategies developed will facilitate regional consistency in the
management of MPAs in the network. Guidelines are presented for development of
site specific management plans for individual MPAs, and for the identification and
selection of other areas that deserve protection at the national level (Annual Progress
Report, 2000). The following comments apply:
1. Guidelines for identification and selection of MPAs did not include potential
anthropogenic threats.
2. The master plan did not include how to integrate with LMR and HB.
3. No detailed survey of existing and planned MPAs was carried out.
4. The selection of MPAs for development only in the southern sub-region has no
foundation since a survey of threats and effectiveness of already existing
management systems should be carried out prior to selection. In the northern

countries, many areas have been declared protected without any actual
management systems. In addition, the important aspect is the already existing
threats.

4.3.3. Effectiveness of implementation, design and management

Our concern over the effectiveness of the training program in the general
remarks equally applies to this component.

The design of the component activities does not seem to lead to the production
of tangible and useful results.

No detailed surveys have been designed to identify the boundaries of all MPA,
bio diversity resources, socioeconomic conditions and impacts, potential
threats and availability of legislation. Expenses of preservation and protection
measures could also be taken into consideration in a prioritization exercise.

Guidelines adopted cannot be used as the basis for the plan of action since it
does not take into account the availability of legislation (effectiveness of the
suggested management schemes) and threats (magnitude and significance of
resource loss). This also questions the scientific merit of prioritization for
management implementation if any has been carried out.

The lack of coordination between MPAs and HB has led to contradictions
concerning MPAs, location, management and biodiversity.

The question of representativeness (representative example of a regional
biodiversity) is not clear.

Training activities are very close to those of Habitat and Biodiversity,

however, no coordination has been carried out between the two components.

The problem of sub regionality is quite clear since all newly suggested MPAs
are located in the southern region even though there are conflicting reports on
regional and national projects covering the same area.

20


4.3.4. Areas of potential success
The Lead specialist has realized many positive areas of potential success. These
include:

Realization that public participation is the main factor necessary for
preservation and protection.

The need of coordination, feedback and integration among components such
as habitats and biodiversity, awareness and navigation risks.

All MPAs are under increasing pressures; however pressures and threats vary
from one area to another.
4.3.5. Suggestions and Recommendations for Marine Protected Areas:
1. Merging the two components of MPA and HB would save budget on training; help
coordination and integration. Coordination and integration with PAP are also
necessary. Saving on training and public awareness activities would be the least
outcome of the merging.
2. Proper and detailed surveys of MPAs, identifying other unrecognized MPAs,
establishing boundaries, legislation, biodiversity, socioeconomic conditions,
threats and potential impacts and vulnerability, should be carried out.
3. Revising guidelines taking into account threats and potential impacts and

reconsider priorities for action.
4. Integration and coordination with LMR, HB, PAP components as well as with the
Navigation risk component is necessary.
5. Data collected should be encoded to a GIS for future integration with other
components and further analysis.
4.4

Component 6 – Support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management

The Special Review Team considers General Remarks.
In addition to reviewing the documents available from the GEF project and
discussions with various stakeholders and staff members, the team also reviewed the
experience gained from evaluating another GEF International Waters regional project
with a focus on Integrated Coastal Area Planning and Management. From these
reviews and discussions the following are considered of particular relevance to
Integrated Coastal Area Planning and Management:
 The decision to allocate whatever resources were necessary to selected
demonstration sites rather than attempting to divide resources equally among all
participants ensured the success of the experiment. This, coupled with an
intensive use of each site for training purposes, has produced the best results for
the region.
 Local governments and empowered local communities working in partnership
are usually more effective in implementing ICM initiatives than national
governments. National governments' role is to provide the national policy
framework within which the local government can manage in partnership with the
community.
 Enhancing the technical capacity of local governments and providing
meaningful information to local communities on the need for coastal and marine

21

management are essential elements of successful ICM projects.
 Integrated coastal planning and management require an interagency and multisectoral administrative and management body if they are to be successfully
applied.
 The political commitment of countries to do something for their own coastal
and marine environments is an important factor for the success of action in this
field. However, this commitment has had to be cultivated and nurtured by the
project.
 Research, monitoring, data gathering and related activities must be problem
oriented and management driven.
 Successful and sustainable coastal and marine management requires the
involvement of the stakeholders and they will need to understand the benefits of
what is being proposed before they can be expected to support it.
 Capacity building should include the training of planners and managers among
both government and community stakeholders.
4.4.1

Concept and design

The SAP identified the following major threats to the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden
environment, and to the coastal and marine resources of the Region:
 Widespread habitat destruction
 Non-sustainable use of living marine resources
 Navigation risks, petroleum transport and petroleum production
 Impacts of urban and industrial development
 Rapid expansion of coastal tourism
 “Other concerns such as the impacts of agriculture”
 Emerging issues such as coastal aquaculture, offshore mining, and coastal
developments

Among the actions to address these threats, and particularly as a pre-emptive measure,
the SAP proposed the use of integrated coastal zone planning and management, which
it recognized as “an effective mechanism for sustainable long term use of the coastal
zone”. The SAP continued by strongly recommending “the development of coastal
zone management plans in all littoral countries … in cooperation with all the
concerned users of the coastal zone”, in recognition that Integrated Coastal Zone
Management Planning is given a priority of 2 or over (on a scale of 3) in virtually all
the National Reports.
In the division of the SAP between the three Implementing Agencies, Component 6 :
Support for Integrated Coastal Zone Management, was assigned to the World Bank
and, according to the Bank’s Project Document, this component was intended to :
(i)
Support training and workshop activities to develop a common regional
framework for ICZM;
(ii)
Support studies to harmonize regional and national Geographic Information
Systems (GIS), including the development of standardized GIS database on coastal
environment:
(iii) Support the preparation of ICZM plans in Djibouti, Northern Coast of
Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

22


The Project Document did not identify specifically the Outputs expected or the
Activities that were to be undertaken, however, these can be partly inferred from the
tabulated Performance Indicators/Activities, which, for Component 6 were as follows:
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS/ACTIVITIES

Establishment of Integrated Coastal Zone Management

(ICZM) Working Group at Regional and National Levels
Review of Geographical Information Systems (GIS) at
Regional Level
Design the Regional GIS Network for ICZM
Preparation of Model ICZM Studies
Preparation of a National and Regional GIS for ICZM

TARGET DATE

01 October 1999
01 October 1999
31 March 2000
30 March 2000
30 March 2003

The Project Document did not distinguish between this Component and Component 2,
which was also assigned to the World Bank, in terms of inputs which amounted to a
total of SDR4.0 million. Neither did the Project Document contain an itemized
budget.
Some of this essential information was provided in the Project Implementation Plan
(PIP), which restated the Objectives for this Component, discussed the Activities that
will be undertaken, described the Implementation Arrangements and proposed a Work
Plan until the end of 2003.
The recent Component Work Plan prepared by the ICZM-LS, which focus on the
years 2001-03, provides further details, including an indication of respective costs.
However, in spite of these additional details many questions regarding the approach
that is to be adopted, the training that is to be undertaken, and the products of the
project, remains unanswered. The project design was weak and vague and the
guidance provided to Project Personnel implementing this Component was inadequate
since it required them to try and interpret what is required of them.

4.4.2

Results to date

Regardless of whichever of the above time plans is followed, Component 6 is running
well behind schedule and nothing of substance has been achieved to date.
Under Major Achievements of the Project, the 1999 Annual Report listed “CVs of GIS
specialists from the region were collated”, as the only contribution from Component 6
for the year. In addition, according to the Report, Working Group members were
selected and approval was obtained. This is indicated as having a cost $42,526 for
personnel and $4,353 for travel. Given this mediocre achievement, it is surprising
that the Report rates project performance in terms of this Component as Satisfactory.
Out of a budgetary allocation of $287,500 for 1999, only $46,300.80 was actually
spent and $241,199.20 remained.
The 2000 Annual Report is more encouraging and lists the following as Major
Achievements for Component 6:

23




The first ICZM Working Group Meeting
o Country reports on the status of ICZM
o Discussion on GIS as a planning tool for ICZM
 Aden site for ICZM Model Activity selected
 TORs developed for National ICZM Working Group
 TORs drafted for ICZM consultant to prepare outline of Model
Activity
 CVs of GIS specialists in the Region collated (see above!)

 Request made to CEDARE to implement GIS activity
 Preparations for comprehensive GIS training
While this is undoubtedly an improvement on the previous year, the above is hardly a
list of major achievements. Out of a budgetary allocation of $600,000 for 2000, only
$100,746.06 was actually spent, leaving a balance of $499,253.94.
The mission was relieved to learn that under new management arrangements, the
ICZM Component has once again picked up speed and is poised to commence
effective implementation.
Over recent times, the basis for effective implementation has been laid through :
 Work Plan (April 2001 to June 2003)
 Annotated Work Plan with Budget breakdown by Outputs
 Concept Paper (draft) on the ICZM Process to be applied in the Model
Studies
 Terms of Reference for the Pre-Assessment Survey in Aden
 Itemized Budget according to standard budget lines
 Description of Services for the GIS Contract
The Contract for the GIS Database has also been negotiated and the Pre-Assessment
Survey in Yemen has commenced. It is sincerely hoped that this new momentum will
be sustained to make up for lost time.
4.4.3

Effectiveness of implementation and management

In view of the meager progress to date, it is not possible to comment at any length on
the effectiveness of implementation and management.
The Lead Specialist for Component 6 who was appointed at the commencement of the
Project, resigned for personal reasons after one year, and in order to safeguard
confidentiality, Project Management was unable to discuss this matter further with the
mission. However, from the lack of progress, it is safe to conclude that the
Component was not being well managed.

According to the current arrangement, two Specialists are now sharing this position,
reporting to the Project Manager and with technical guidance from the Chief
Technical Advisor. The mission is impressed by the degree of thoroughness being
applied to the preparatory work for activities under Component 6 and feels that this
arrangement should work effectively. However, as the Lead Specialists themselves
observed, they are in need of expert advice and guidance on various aspects of ICZM

24


to help them achieve the utmost benefit for the region with the resources available and
within the remaining time.
As a general comment, implementation to date seems to have lacked the degree of
participation at the grassroots level, which is essential for an effective ICZM process,
which must be locally owned. The ICZM Working Group, which could be
instrumental in this respect, does not appear to be functioning effectively yet and may
need new and more proactive operational procedures. Communication and other
linkages between the SAP and stakeholders in general do not seem strong and these
must be established and fostered for the success of this Component. In fact,
communication with stakeholders and policy makers at the country level must be twoway and a dialogue needs to be established.
4.4.4

Areas of potential success

There is good potential for the SAP to lay the foundations for effective Integrated
Coastal Area Management in the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden region. However, it cannot be
expected to operationalize the process within the lifetime of the Project since
‘management’ is a continuing activity. Furthermore, effective integrated management
of the coastal environment is most unlikely without a thorough planning process
which is the phase that establishes the truly integrated characteristics of ICZM or

Integrated Coastal area Management (ICAM). The establishment of the ICAM,
following it’s testing through a series of pilot projects, should lead to effective
Integrated Coastal Area Management. However, the importance of the Coastal
Planning Process cannot be stressed too much.
4.4.5 Suggestions for measures to strengthen design, products and delivery
processes
Focus on the integration element of ICZM or ICAM
Coastal planning and coastal management have been practiced for some time around
the periphery of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden by various sectors and organizations in
fulfillment of their respective mandates and it is only the integrative quality of ICZM
or ICAM that distinguishes it from what is already common practice.
If the SAP Component 6 is to bequeath a useful and effective coastal planning and
management process, it must not simply propose management within a multi-sectoral
context since this already happens. SAP Component 6 must develop a coastal
planning and management process which is truly integrated at the policy level across
National and local government; at the planning level across all government sector
organizations and right out to the private sector and local communities; at the
management level across all sectors and spanning land and water.
The approach currently proposed by Component 6, which is issues based, may not
achieve true integration - a comprehensive, inclusive approach is recommended as
more likely to achieve integration.
Focus on the planning stages rather than the management stages

25