ANNEX 3: Total Budget and Workplan Award ID: Project Title: Mainstreaming Conservation of Migratory Soaring Birds into Key Productive Sectors along the Rift Valley/Red Sea Flyway GEF Outcome/Atlas Responsible Source of Amount (USD Amount (USD) Amount (USD Amount (USD) Total (USD) All Activity** Party Funds Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 (etc) Years OUTCOME 1: Raised 62000 800,000 800,000 250,000 207,500 2,057,500 BLI Awarness of the flyway and NGO fund code 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 altered social and cultural behaviours 800,000 900,000 250,000 207,500 2,157,500 OUTCOME 2Increased national and regional capacity to BLI 62000 250,000 200,000 85,000 56,000 591,000 effect double mainstreaming and application of flyway concept 250,000 200,000 85,000 56,000 591,000 OUTCOME 3: Content and tools to enhance flyway friendly practice developed, delivered, and mainstreamed effectively BLI 62000 686,250 686,250 686,250 686,250 2,745,000 into sector processes and programmes 686,250 686,250 686,250 686,250 2,745,000 OUTCOME 4Learning, Evaluation, and adaptive BLI 62000 212,436 212,436 212,436 212,436 849,744 management increased 212,436 212,436 212,436 212,436 849,743 1,948,686.00 1,998,686 1,233,686 1,162,186 6,343,243 41 ANNEX4: Map of Flyway Maps for Annex 4 were added to a separate file due to the large size of the Annexes 42 ANNEX5: Stakeholder Implementation Plan Stakeholders identified The list of key stakeholders varies by country, according to the national problem analysis (particularly the key threats to MSBs in each country) and the national opportunities for “mainstreaming” MSBs concerns into key sectors other than environment or biodiversity conservation. Project stakeholders were grouped into the following categories: governmental agencies; non-governmental organizations; local community groups; national agencies; private sector; international agencies. Governmental agencies Names and responsibilities vary between countries but across the region governmental stakeholders include ministries and their agencies responsible for: environment (may include hunting, wildlife trade, biodiversity, protected areas); agriculture (hunting, pesticides, some protected areas); forestry (some protected areas/ habitat restoration); waste management; local administration/ municipalities; electricity/ energy/ power; renewable energy; land use; planning; water/ irrigation; marine/ coastal management; climate change/ desertification; transport/ roads; petroleum; tourism; education. Others such as ministry of interior (hunting, trade), social affairs, health, justice, finance, defense and economy were identified in some country analyses. Across the region, key ministries and agencies are characterized by lack of awareness of MSBs, their conservation needs and the actual or potential impacts of their sector on MSBs and biodiversity generally. The readiness to collaborate with the project is very variable in different countries and in different sectors with some encouraging results from the PDF-B stage (e.g. Willingness of Lebanon and Sudan Ministries of Power/ Electricity to consider mitigation measures on power lines and siting of distribution networks away from flyways once the negative impacts on MSBs were explained). Government agricultural extension services working with rural communities were identified as useful existing mechanisms for awareness-raising and community involvement in the project. Non-governmental organizations and local community groups In 7 of the 11 project countries, the lead implementing agency is a national NGO which forms part of the Middle East or Africa Partnership of Birdlife International. (In other countries there is no strong tradition of NGO leadership in biodiversity conservation and the project will be led by a relevant government agency – e.g. Nature Conservation Sector of Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency; National Commission for Wildlife Conservation and Development in Saudi Arabia). In most project countries there is a wide range of other NGOs and community based organizations (CBOs) with interests and skills in wildlife, sustainable development, agriculture etc. which will contribute to project implementation (e.g. farmers' and fishermen's cooperatives and local community development organizations in Yemen). Particular NGO strengths identified in stakeholder analyses in several countries (e.g. Jordan, Lebanon, and Ethiopia) include community involvement, awareness-raising, environmental education and project management (e.g. through experience of managing regional and national BirdLife International Important Bird Areas programmes). In Palestine, the non-governmental Hunting Club will work with the project on an anti-hunting campaign to stop hunting of rare, threatened species. National agencies National agencies in some countries are key stakeholders whose involvement in the project is essential for success. In Jordan, the Aqaba Special Economic Zone Authority (ASEZA) and Jordan Valley Authority (JVA) are the most influential bodies in terms of development, land management and enforcement of policy and legislation in the Aqaba and Jordan Valley bottlenecks. The Lebanese Council for Development and Reconstruction is responsible for planning and implementation of all large rehabilitation and development projects nationally. National unions and syndicates in Syria (e.g. Students, farmers, writers and teachers) are identified as key stakeholders in relation to public awareness. Private sector Key stakeholders in the private sector include hunting clubs and their members (e.g. Lebanon); Universities, research institutes and natural history museums; various branches of the media (TV, radio, newspapers); general public; private tour company operators (ecotourism potential). 43 International agencies UNDP Country Offices (COs) played strong roles in project development, through involvement in stakeholder workshops and in identifying opportunities for “mainstreaming” MSB conservation into other sectors and existing projects (“double mainstreaming”). Suitable projects for this approach, in agriculture, waste management, hunting and tourism have been identified through UNDP in 7 project countries; 6 projects in Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon will be part of the project Tranche I. COs also assisted project development and stakeholder participation through production of communication tools (project briefing sheets, fund-raising brochure, Power Point presentation on raptor migration). Other contributing international bodies include international NGOs (BirdLife International), other projects and donors (e.g. International development aid agencies). Project beneficiaries Although 4 sectors (agriculture, hunting, waste management and energy production) have been identified as representing significant threats to MSBs, this does not mean the stakeholders in these sectors will be disadvantaged by the project. Staff of government agencies, NGOs and some private sector groups will benefit from training and capacity building opportunities offered by the project. The “double mainstreaming” approach means that the project will add value to existing projects in these sectors and bring benefits to these sectoral groups – e.g. Hunters and farmers (Sustainable Hunting Project; Agricultural Development Project, both in Lebanon). Other MSB project inputs may be neutral in terms of impact on local communities but will benefit stakeholders directly involved in implementation (e.g. the Power Access and Diversification Project, Djibouti – siting and monitoring of wind turbines to ensure that these are “flyway-friendly”). There will also be “general public” benefits in terms of increased awareness and access to information. In other cases, the double mainstreaming approach means that the project will assist governments to improve and/ or enforce existing legislation and meet their own obligations in relation to international conventions (e.g. Strengthening the Lebanese Judiciary System in the Enforcement of Environmental Legislation; Strengthening Environmental Enforcement, Jordan). In relation to the tourism sector, the addition of MSB information and concerns can bring benefits in terms of new opportunities to attract tourists to bottleneck sites and to interpret both the MSBs experience and other natural heritage interest. There is potential for local community benefits through increasing ecotourism activity and revenues and this may have a positive impact on other sectoral groups (e.g. Farmers, hunters) who become involved in ecotourism (e.g. Sustainable Economic Growth in the Red Sea Governorate Project, Egypt). More details of all these projects and the “double mainstreaming” approach are given in Outcome 3, Project Strategy. Risks of negative impacts/ opposition to the project The national stakeholder analyses for each country revealed widespread lack of awareness of MSBs concerns. In some cases there was lack of interest and concern for MSBs even after approaches had been made by the project. (This was manifest particularly as reluctance by government staff to provide relevant sectoral information for national reviews during the PDF-B stage). However, there was no outright opposition to the project and its aims and no specific stakeholders were identified as being likely to suffer negative impacts or to oppose project activities. Hunters and farmers might be stakeholder groups who would take a negative attitude to attempts by the project to support strengthening or enforcement of relevant legislation (hunting, trade and pesticide