leptoceros VU), Dorcas Gazelle (Gazella dorcas EN) COMPONENT 1. Changing the trajectory of tourism development and operations to safeguard biodiversity Outcome 1: Direct adverse impacts of tourism infrastructure development on biodiversity and land/sea-scapes (primarily loss and severe degradation of critical habitats in both terrestrial and marine ecosystems) are avoided, reduced or compensated in at least the c. 10,000 km² of ecologically sensitive areas (including c. 2324 km² inside protected areas) exposed to development pressures Output 1.1 Coherent and effective legal, policy, regulatory and institutional frameworks in place at the national and levels for multi-sectoral land-use planning at the landscape level, to avoid, reduce, mitigate and offset adverse impacts of tourism pressures on biodiversity Capacity at the MSEA/EEAA/NCS, MoT/TDA for integrating biodiversity into SEAs, EIAs and related regulations in tourism planning and permitting, and for compliance monitoring and enforcement There is no SEA and biodiversity is poorly addressed in the EIA Capacity strengthened by ...To be determined during the inception phase Capacity of governorate and municipal authorities in the target areas for integrating biodiversity into tourism planning and permitting No specific policies and capacities on the biodiversity/interface. Governorate and municipal planning is largely concerned with urban planning and solid waste management Governorate and municipal planning reviews current plans against the needs of the SEA and imposes restrictions and mitigation measures where necessary Governorate development plans, actual tourism developments, specific assessments Capacity of governorate and municipal authorities in the target areas for related compliance monitoring and enforcement Very limited or no institutional capacities on effective regulation processes and oversight of tourism development and on promotion of NB/BFT Institutional and technical capacity increased Specific capacity assessments Environmental infractions during the construction and operational phases To be defined during Inception At least a 50% reduction in environmental infractions achieved through monitoring and enforcement Reports of site visits by EIA authority and or project Available future scenarios NSTSP provides a single vision for the future largely based upon increasing the number of tourists to Egypt each year An agreed vision for the future of tourism in Egypt based upon the ecosystems ability to support the vision without loss of biodiversity Egyptian Tourism Scenarios, NBSAP, NSTSP Risk: The default scenario or less desirable scenarios are ignored as being too negative and frightening
Table M&E Activities, Responsibilities, Budget and Time Frame Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Excluding project team staff time Time frame Inception Workshop and Report Project Manager UNDP CO, UNDP GEF Indicative cost: 10,000 Within first five months after GEF CEO Endorsement Measurement of Means of Verification of project results. UNDP GEF RTA/Project Manager will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members. To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Start, mid and end of project (during evaluation cycle) and annually when required. Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress on output and implementation Oversight by Project Manager Project team To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Annually prior to ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans GEF Project Implementation Review (PIR) Project manager and team UNDP UNDP RTA UNDP EEG None Annually Periodic status/ progress reports Project manager and team None Quarterly Independent Review Project manager and team UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: 40,000 At the mid-point of project implementation. Independent Terminal Evaluation Project manager and team, UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost : 40,000 At least three months before the end of project implementation Project Terminal Report Project manager and team UNDP CO local consultant 0 At least three months before the end of the project Audit UNDP CO Project manager and team Indicative cost: 4 x $2000 Yearly Visits to field sites UNDP CO UNDP RCU (as appropriate) Government representatives For GEF supported projects, paid from IA fees and operational budget Yearly TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses US$ 98,000 7 Standard text has been inserted in the template. It should be noted that although there is no specific statement on the responsibility for the safety and security of the executing agency in the SBAA and the supplemental provisions, the second paragraph of the inserted text should read in line with the statement as
body to implement the workplan activities but also this option has a lot of concerns. - by government 2,492,155 2,430,000 - by independent/other channels 0 (2) Estimation of PA system financing needs Where possible breakdown by terrestrial and marine sub-systems A. Estimated financing needs for basic management costs (operational and investments) to be covered 16,000,000 13,128,570 Summarize methodology used to make estimate (eg costs detailed at certain sites and then extrapolated for system): Based on protected area Management Systems "basic scenario" produced by the project (where available) or by consultation with park management considering last year expenditures and next year plans - PA central system level operational costs (salaries, office maintenance etc) 6,428,570 - PA site management operational costs 1,700,000 - PA site infrastructure investment costs 3,500,000 - PA system capacity building costs for central and site levels (training, strategy, policy reform etc) 1,500,000 These system capacity building needs are additional to daily operations but critical for system development and are often covered by donors B. Estimated financing needs for optimal management costs (operational and investments) to be covered 32,000,000 20,400,000 Summarize methodology used to make estimate:Based on protected area Management Systems "optimal scenario" produced by the project (where available) or by consultation with park management considering last year expenditures and next year plans - PA central system level operational costs (salaries, office maintenance etc) 8,700,000 - PA site management operational costs 3,200,000 - PA site infrastructure investment costs 6,000,000 - PA system capacity building costs for central and site levels (training, strategy, policy reform etc) 2,500,000 These system capacity building needs are additional to attaining basic management capacities and may entail additional scientific research, public communications, scholarships etc)
areas to local and national development are available 2: Satisfactory 3: Full (ii) PA economic valuation influences government decision makers 0: None 1: Partial 2: Satisfactory 3: Full It influences at the level of EEAA.. Sometimes it influences other ministries; its used to stop several activities…. Not achieved expected results yet Element 7 - Improved government budgeting for PA systems (i) Government policy promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management plans 2 0: No 1: Partially 2: Yes According to PAs integerated management system, the governoment promotes budgeting for PAs based on financial need as determined by PA management system but only implemented to those 10 PAs applied the management system. (ii) PA budgets includes funds to finance threat reduction strategies in buffer zones (eg livelihoods of communities living around the PA)[3] 2 0: No 1: Partially 2: Yes if NCS includes this priorities it can be done; for public awareness in buffer zone + its part of the overall activities of PA management (iii) Administrative (eg procurement) procedures facilitate budget to be spent, reducing risk of future budget cuts due to low disbursement rates 2 0: No 1: Partially 2: Yes System does not facilitate expenditure, (iv) Government plans to increase budget, over the long term, to reduce the PA financing gap 2 0: No 1: Partially 2: Yes In general they increase 10% every year … consumed by salaries, inflation adjustment Element 8 - Clearly defined institutional responsibilities for financial management of PAs (i) Mandates of public institutions regarding PA finances are clear and agreed 2 0: None 1: Partial 2: Improving 3: Full A landuse map was offcially established to agree on inistitutional responsibilities for financial managemnt of PAs. Element 9 - Well-defined staffing requirements, profiles and incentives at site and system level (i) Central level has sufficient economists and economic planners to improve financial sustainability of the system 1 0: None 1: Partial 2: Almost there 3: Full State positions and describe roles: (ii) There is an organizational structure (eg a dedicated unit) with sufficient authority and coordination to properly manage the finances of the PA system 1 0: None 1: Partial 2: Almost there 3: Full (iii) At the regional and PA site level there is sufficient professional capacity to promote 1 0: None 1: Partial State positions and describe roles:
(iii) Business plans, based on standard formats and linked to PA management plans and conservation objectives, are developed across the PA system[5] 2 0: Not begun 1: Early stages Below 25% of sites within the system 2: Near complete Above 70% of sites 3: Completed or 100% coverage Commeritial service plan has been prepared and linked to PA management system (iv) Business plans are implemented across the PA system (degree of implementation measured by achievement of objectives) 1 0: Not begun 1: Early stages Below 25% of sites within the system 2: Near complete Above 70% of sites 3: Completed or 100% coverage Business plans are implemented in some PAs and will be developed to other PAs using Commeritial service plan formate and will be linked to (v) Business plans for PAs contribute to system level planning and budgeting 1 0: Not begun 1: Early stages Below 25% of sites within the system 2: Near complete Above 70% of sites 3: Completed or 100% coverage (vi) Costs of implementing management and business plans are monitored and contributes to cost-effective guidance and financial performance reporting 1 0: Not begun 1: Early stages Below 25% of sites within the system 2: Near complete Above 70% of sites 3: Completed or 100% coverage Element 2 - Operational, transparent and useful accounting and auditing systems (i) There is a transparent and coordinated cost (operational and investment) accounting system functioning for the PA system 2 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Fully completed Auditing is done trough government rules; not yet integrated with investment (ii) Revenue tracking systems for each PA in place and operational 2 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Fully completed Needs more HR and administration; Its both manual and computarized (iii) There is a system so that the accounting data contributes to system level planning and budgeting 1 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Fully completed Existing system does not allow to PA accountants to follow up any planned budget Element 3 - Systems for monitoring and reporting on financial management performance (i) All PA revenues and expenditures are fully and 2 0: None 1: Partial
accurately reported by PA authorities to stakeholders 2: Near complete 3: Complete and operational (ii) Financial returns on tourism related investments are measured and reported, where possible (eg track increase in visitor revenues before and after establishment of a visitor centre) 2 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Complete and operational (iii) A monitoring and reporting system in place to show how and why funds are allocated across PA sites and the central PA authority 2 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Complete and operational There is a monitoring tool in place including technical and financial performance; (iv) A reporting and evaluation system is in place to show how effectively PAs use their available finances (ie disbursement rate and to achieve management objectives 1 0: None 1: Partial 2: Near complete 3: Complete and operational METT is being applied Element 4 - Methods for allocating funds across individual PA sites (i) National PA budget is allocated to sites based on agreed and appropriate criteria (eg size, threats, needs, performance) 1 0: No 1: Yes Yes, but not in all PAs as some still needs management system to be established (ii) Funds raised by co-managed PAs do not reduce government budget allocations where funding gaps still exist 1 0: No 1: Yes They maintain staff and other key resources Element 5 - Training and support networks to enable PA managers to operate more cost-effectively[6] (i) Guidance on cost-effective management developed and being used by PA managers 1 0: Absent 1: Partially done 2: Almost done 3: Fully METT is being applied (ii) Inter-PA site level network exist for PA managers to share information with each other on their costs, practices and impacts 2 0: Absent 1: Partially done 2: Almost done 3: Fully NCS website has been developed to allow PA managers to share information, but still some PAs need equepments & internet service (iii) Operational and investment cost comparisons between PA sites complete, available and 2 0: Absent 1: Partially done 2: Almost done 3: Fully METT is being applied based on PA manager performance on agreed PA management sysytem
5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
10. Protection systems: Are systems in place to control access/resource use in the protected area? 1 0: Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in controlling access/resource use 1: Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource use 2: Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 3: Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ resource use Comments and Next Steps The existing system is partly applied. A permit for entrance and exit should be applied for Siwa protected area. And protecting of PA borders through empowering the capacities of community guards of Siwa. 11. Research: Is there a programme of management-orientated survey and research work? 2 0: There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 1: There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management 2: There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management 3:There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs Comments and Next Steps There is some monitoring and research programs but it is not perfectly working and with no results Establish a scientific unit for research and monitoring at PA level. Participation of research institutions in the management planning and development of an associated monitoring programme within the management plan
Management objective 1 Protection of natural ecosystem and Biodiversity including Flora and Fauna Diversity. This includes mitigating the effects of tourism and industrial developments. Management objective 2 Support local community livelihood and preservation of the cultural areas (Romanian wells) No. of people involved in completing assessment 7 Developed under Mainstreaming the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into tourism development and operations in threatened ecosystems in Egypt. (GEF/UNDP) Including: (please choose 1-8) It really makes no sense to have this limited to an either/or scrolldown menu. As in old METT you should be able to list several CONTRIBUTED: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 1: PA manager 2: PA staff 3: Other PA agency staff 4: Donors 5: NGOs 6: External experts 7: Local community 8: Other Information on International Designations Please indicate your answer here UNESCO World Heritage site (see: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list) Date Listed Site name
4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.4 Flight paths - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources
7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources
9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.4 Garbage and solid waste 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.5 Air-borne pollutants - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. 10.1 Volcanoes - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.2 Droughts 3 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.3 Temperature extremes 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.4 Storms and flooding 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 12. Specific cultural and social threats
activities associated with the protected area Comments and Next Steps Through the local working groups, there are direct and indirect benefits by providing grazing places improving the income. There are some economical obstacles, which are taken into account and under development. Next steps: PA management planning and developing NB/BFT within the PA and through a Visitor Management Plan 26. Monitoring and evaluation: Are management activities monitored against performance? 1 0: There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 1: There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy and/or no regular collection of results 2: There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but results do not feed back into management 3: A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and used in adaptive management Comments and Next Steps What little monitoring takes place does not help to inform management and make it adaptive. Next steps: To develop a monitoring programme within the PA management Plan 27. Visitor facilities: Are visitor facilities adequate? 0 0: There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 1: Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 2: Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but could be improved 3: Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation
8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
6. Protected area boundary demarcation: Is the boundary known and demarcated? 2 0: The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users 1: The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users 2: The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not appropriately demarcated 3: The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users and is appropriately demarcated Comments and Next Steps The boundaries are defined in PA decree and is plotted on the national land use map 7. Management plan: Is there a management plan and is it being implemented? 2 0: There is no management plan for the protected area 1: A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented 2: A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems 3: A management plan exists and is being implemented Comments and Next Steps The MP needs to be updated to include issues arising from increased tourism development and to promote NB/BFT 7.a Planning process: The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes Comments and Next Steps Stakeholders and local communities are involved 7.b Planning process: There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes