Project CD is available which contains all achievements and results of the MedWetCoast as well as the lessons learnt. Available free of charge, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Please click here for more project information.
|Sites Participating||1. Narta Lagoon, Sazani Island (Albania)|
2. Karabarun, Peninsula (Albania)
3. Liogara, Orikumi (Albania)
4. Zaranik (Egypt)
5. Burullus (Egypt)
6. El Omaya (Egypt)
7. Ammiq (Lebanon)
8. Ras El Ain, Tyre Beach Reserve (Lebanon)
9. Estuary of Moulaya River (Morocco)
10. Cap des trois Fourchet (Morocco)
11. Jbel Gourougou, (Morocco)
12. Nador Lagoon (Morocco)
13. Beni Snassene (Morocco)
14. Wadi Gaza (Palestinian Authority)
15. Zemba, Zembretta (Tunisia)
16. Oued Abid, El Houaria, Dar Chichou (Tunisia)
17. Kelibia, Korba (Tunisia)
|Duration||September 1999 (for Lebanon: mid-late 2001)|
|Duration in months: 75|
|Lead Partner||United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)|
French Global Environment Facility (FGEF)
Project Coordination hosted by Tour du Valat
3. WWF MedPo
4. IUCN Mediterranean Center
5. MoE Lebanon
6. Ministry of Health and Environment Albania
7. APAL Tunisia
8. MATEE Morocco
9. EEAA Egypt
10. MENA Palestinian Authority
|UNDP/GEF Regional Office|
Site Management Objectives
|“To conserve globally endangered species and their habitat, recognising wildlife conservation as an integral part of sustainable human development, while improving capacity of government and non-government agencies to address biodiversity conservation issues”|
Conserving wetland and coastal biodiversity of global and regional importance of six countries in the Mediterranean basin.
Development of fields and methods in the fields of capacity building an application of the results of research.
Application of the tools developed in MedWet1 in 5 non-EU countries
Adoption of MedWet Inventory System, officially presented during the Mediterranean Workshop at Ramsar COP7, May 1999, as a basic tool for obtaining a common record of Mediterranean Wetlands.
Reliance on local expertise for execution of projects instead of foreign consultants. Entrusting existing services.
(i) developing site management capacity and site infrastructure;
(ii) demonstrating how to change the decisions and behaviour of local institutions and resource users in order to be more biodiversity friendly.
|Limitations||The overall project impact was considerably limited by several factors, in particular by the approach to project implementation. Specifically, the project design documents, which were prepared in the late 90’s, were too ambitious in parts and insufficiently detailed in others and consequently, filed to provide a clear logical framework or adequate indicators and targets. This lack of agreed, clear targets was a major constraint to evaluating project impact.|
Also, the multi-layered project structure was too complex, and the roles and responsibilities were not sufficiently clear. The regional and national mechanisms for managerial and technical guidance were ineffective. They provided inadequate support and oversight to the national project teams – they focused mostly on site protection. Too often, the national teams did not have the right balance of skills and expertise.
Finally, the choice of sites was questionable. This point, as well as the ones above, is elaborated in the main body of the Final Evaluation of the MedWet/Coast Project, where examples for all are provided.