Overview SMAP III ICZM projects

1. Overview SMAP III ICZM projects And opportunities for collaboration with UNEP/MAP – working session presentation Etienne Baijot DTL SMAP III TA Split, April 3-4, 2006.

2. Goal • Taking advantage of the opportunity to have 10 (related) ICZM projects carried out simultaneously under the EU common umbrella to enhance mutual benefits and get successful projects. • Reinforce the euro med partnership by developing exchange and cross-fertilisation between various EU and MDC institutions • Strengthen the regional capacity and institutional ICZM framework • Contribute to nurture the EC 2020 initiative

3. Selected and non Selected Projects per country • Observations: • The n.s. include the sub-regional p proposed by 3 ministries of Env. Syria, Jord., Leba • Morcco; 2 projects but one is the the sub-regional regional El K/Moul. • Therefore 4 countries with no sel. Projects.

4. Success according to the applicants status

5. Overview of the partners(selected projects)

6. Overview of the ICZM projects

7. Overview of specific features

8. Examples of training courses listed in the 9 projects: Coastal ecosystem resources ICZM planning Biomonitoring - Biomarkers Design of ICZM plan, GIS/WebGIS Participatory process and CRM IWM numerical models MPAs management Sustainable tourism Topo-bathymetry (beaches and dunes) Sand dune fixation; beach nourishment Monitoring system SEA C/B analysis Legal and institutional aspects (only one project) !! Training of the stakeholders Very little use of existing training courses like MEDCOAST, MEDOPEN, CoastLearn, and others Huge opportunity for cross-fertilisation and possibility to benefit from competences of organizations and individuals participating in the 9 projects (8 ICZM and UNEP/MAP) In total, the 8 projects plan to deliver about 20 training courses Cross-fertilisation (1): ex: training

9. Cross-fertilisation (2) • ICZM and protected areas: 4 projects are related to biodiversity conservation and/or protected areas : Appropriateness of the ICZM tools for the management of protected areas • Other examples are related to Project Steering Committee and Advisory board /committee: different situations as exposed below will allow to draw lessons learned from these situations over the time (ownership, cross-sector collaboration, communication with the local population and private sector, etc.

10. Management and Institutional set up • Project Steering Committee (PSC) • PSC composed of partners only • PSC composed from partners and some stakeholders including high ranking actors in coastal management • Advisory board/committee: most of the projects • Multi-stakeholders dialogue or platform • Voluntary agreements and MoU: contract d’espace littoral (only one project) • Working groups on specific issues • National workshops in relation with capacity building and/or awareness activities

11. Advisory committee/board • Most of the projects have planned to set up this board. However, • For a few projects, clear objective: get political will and support from stakeholders with an adequate composition made of decision makers in ICZM in the target area and representative of different groups of stakeholders, and decision on project’s activities • For several projects, it is just consultative body, with unclear role and composition, therefore risk of lack of ownership of the action plan • Generally, little involvement of the private sector, especially industrial sector

12. Advisory committee/board • Opportunities to consider: • Secure cross-sector participation, key ICZM point • More say for the private sector … • Need to get both national and local authorities involved = includes dual ‘bottom-up” and “top-down” approach • Might contribute to materialize and to understand gaps in the current legal framework (discrepancies between national and local level)? • Strengthen linkage with both local and national level through representatives from national ministries of from national agencies

13. Multi-stakeholder forum/platform • Aim to provide broader participation of stakeholders, increased coordination and communication and dialogue • Organization: regular roundtables between stakeholders, decision makers, experts to exchange ideas, reduce gaps and address conflicts; project’s team as mediator and facilitator • In some projects, one member of the stakeholder is nominated to be member of the steering committee • Multi-stakeholder forum can take various forms or names like inter-sector committees

14. Strengths • Clear and logical strategies for addressing critical ICZM issues and empowering stakeholders for several projects • Great opportunities for cross-fertilisation among the projects and with on-going programs (MedWetCoast, GEF, etc.) • Good linkage with national level for a few projects (Tunisia, Alexandria, Morocco) • Capacity building well developed for several projects. • Good regional and ICZM experience of several applicants (EUCC, WWF, BMA, MedCoast, etc. ) • Decentralization of the ICZM process: involvement of local authorities (municipalities and governorates) for several projects

15. Weakness and risks • Need for more inter-sector integration for several projects • Great emphasize given to surveys, GIS and database, but more consideration is needed for institutional home for these tools (sustainability) • Risk of insufficient ownership when low involvement of stakeholders in the preparation and design of the action plan, leading to production of blue prints • Limited application of ICZM concepts and principles (within an SPA) and limited arrangements for implementation • Sustainability: low institutionalization (more linkage with national authorities would be needed) and lack of financial resources for implementation (for nearly all the projects).

16. Linkage with national level National institutions PSC • -APAL • EEAA Advisory board Project