New insights into monitoring protected area

0 downloads 0 Views 3MB Size Report
May 20, 2009 - effectiveness, monitoring, protected area, threat reduction assessment ...... during its history: Sumerian, Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, ...... separated from the ACS however the NGO still constitutes the ...
A thesis submitted to the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy of Central European University in part fulfilment of the Degree of Master of Science

New insights into monitoring protected area management in Lebanon

Diane MATAR May, 2009 Budapest

Erasmus Mundus Masters Course in Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management

MESPOM

This thesis is submitted in fulfillment of the Master of Science degree awarded as a result of successful completion of the Erasmus Mundus Masters course in Environmental Sciences, Policy and Management (MESPOM) jointly operated by the University of the Aegean (Greece), Central European University (Hungary), Lund University (Sweden) and the University of Manchester (United Kingdom).

Supported by the European Commission’s Erasmus Mundus Programme

ii

Notes on copyright and the ownership of intellectual property rights (1) Copyright in text of this thesis rests with the Author. Copies (by any process) either in full, or of extracts, may be made only in accordance with instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European University Library. Details may be obtained from the Librarian. This page must form part of any such copies made. Further copies (by any process) of copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the permission (in writing) of the Author. (2) The ownership of any intellectual property rights which may be described in this thesis is vested in the Central European University, subject to any prior agreement to the contrary, and may not be made available for use by third parties without the written permission of the University, which will prescribe the terms and conditions of any such agreement. (3)

For bibliographic and reference purposes this thesis should be referred to as:

Matar, D. 2009. New insights into monitoring protected area management in Lebanon. Master of Science thesis, Central European University, Budapest.

Further information on the conditions under which disclosures and exploitation may take place is available from the Head of the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University.

iii

Author’s declaration No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

Diane MATAR

iv

THE CENTRAL EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY

ABSTRACT OF THESIS submitted by: Diane MATAR for the degree of Master of Science and entitled: New insights into monitoring protected area management in Lebanon. Month and Year of submission: May, 2009. Protected Areas have gained worldwide importance as the rate of biodiversity loss has been increasing. Despite huge amounts of projects invested in conservation, the 2010 goals set by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are unlikely to be met. One major identified reason for this failure is the low effectiveness of PA management. To address this issue, worldwide efforts have concentrated on developing monitoring tools that would enhance the assessment of progress towards conservation objectives. Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) is one of these tools and provides an indirect measure of conservation project success. I used the modified version of TRA incorporating negative scoring to calculate TRA index values for 2 forest protected areas in Lebanon: Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserves, with the aim to test the suitability of using this tool for improving monitoring and management effectiveness of forest protected areas in Lebanon. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation and unified classification of threats was used to classify identified threats. The results showed a TRA index value of 24% for Horsh Ehden for the period of 1997-2002 and a significant negative trend in threat reduction thereafter reflected by unusually high negative TRA Index values of -78% for the Core Zone (CZ) and -118% for the Buffer Zone (BZ) during 20022009. A TRA Index of 51% was obtained for Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve for the post-war period of 2006-2009, showing an improvement in managing threats relative to the summer of 2006. The results were used to prioritize actions for new management plans, and identify key underlying threats to the protected areas. The study showed that the TRA tool has a high potential to be used as a regular monitoring tool for improving forest protected area management in Lebanon.

Keywords: Al-Shouf Cedar, biodiversity threats, Horsh Ehden, Lebanon, management effectiveness, monitoring, protected area, threat reduction assessment

v

Acknowledgements I would like to thank all the people who contributed to the success of my thesis research. First, my supervisor Brandon Anthony who really helped me challenge myself and get the best out of my capacities, and whose continuous feedback was of high value. I would also like to address a special thanks to Jean Stephan from the Ministry of Agriculture in Lebanon, and to Csaba Szabo who helped me in the field work. Moreover, without the collaboration of the management team members of Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserves, this research wouldn’t have been accomplished. Of special support were Nizar Hani, Sandra Saba, Tony Saade, and Wissam Abou Daher. I would also like to acknowledge the valuable input of the following people and institutions: Carla Khater from the National Council for Scientific Research, Elsa Sattout from the French Development Agency, Faysal Abu Izzeddin, Ghassan Jaradi from the Lebanese University, Karim El-Jisr from EcoDit, Nancy Awad from the Ministry of Environment, and Green Line Association. I also need to acknowledge the “missing contribution” of many key people in the field of protected area management in Lebanon that I failed to meet because of time limitation or lack of availability. Finally, I would like to thank my dear family in Lebanon for their presence and support all through the thesis research, and I express my gratitude to the European Commission for the Erasmus Mundus Scholarship that financed my Masters Degree.

vi

Table of Contents Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................14 1.1 Background ....................................................................................................................14 1.2 Justification for research ...............................................................................................15 1.3 Aim and objectives .........................................................................................................16 1.4 Methods and justification...............................................................................................16 1.5 Research problem ..........................................................................................................17 1.6 Hypothesis......................................................................................................................17 1.7 Report structure .............................................................................................................18 Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................19 2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................19 2.2 International background ..............................................................................................19 2.2.1 Protected area definition..........................................................................................19 2.2.2 Protected area concept evolution.............................................................................20 2.2.3 Policy and international agendas .............................................................................21 2.2.4 Protected area categories and governance ...............................................................22 2.2.5 Conservation and protected area issues...................................................................24 2.2.5.1 Biodiversity representation ...............................................................................24 2.2.5.2 Increasing direct threats to biodiversity and protected areas ............................25 2.2.5.3 Management effectiveness ................................................................................26 2.2.6 Protected area management and monitoring ...........................................................27 2.2.6.1 Management planning.......................................................................................27 2.2.6.2 Monitoring concept and issues..........................................................................28 2.2.6.3 Monitoring tools................................................................................................29 2.3 Local background ..........................................................................................................35 2.3.1 General information on Lebanon.............................................................................35 2.3.2 Political situation and instability .............................................................................36 2.3.3 Impact of political instability on protected areas ....................................................37 2.3.4 Biodiversity of Lebanon ..........................................................................................38 2.3.4.1 General biodiversity ..........................................................................................38 2.3.4.2 Cedar forests as a natural heritage ....................................................................39 2.3.5 Direct threats to biodiversity ...................................................................................40 2.3.5.1 Increasing human threats...................................................................................40 2.3.5.2 Impact of direct threats on terrestrial biodiversity ............................................41 2.3.5.3 Mitigation of direct threats to biodiversity........................................................42 2.3.6 International agreements and conventions ..............................................................43 2.3.7 Protected area designation and classification ..........................................................44 2.3.7.1 Expansion of protected areas ............................................................................44 2.3.7.2 Classification of protected areas .......................................................................44 2.3.7.3 Nature Reserves ................................................................................................45 2.3.8 Protected area management .....................................................................................46 vii

2.3.9 Protected area monitoring........................................................................................49 2.3.9.1 Biological indicators .........................................................................................49 2.3.9.2 Direct threats .....................................................................................................50 2.3.9.3 Management and monitoring issues..................................................................51 2.4 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................51 Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................53 3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................53 3.2 Research design .............................................................................................................53 3.3 Qualitative research ......................................................................................................53 3.3.1 Data collection.........................................................................................................53 3.3.2 Interviews ................................................................................................................54 3.4 Quantitative research ....................................................................................................55 3.4.1 Scope of the study ...................................................................................................55 3.4.2 Instruments ..............................................................................................................56 3.4.2.1 Methods and conceptual frameworks................................................................56 3.4.2.2 Justification for the Threat Reduction Assessment method ..............................56 3.4.3 Threat Reduction Assessment workshops ...............................................................57 3.4.3.1 Workshop summary ..........................................................................................57 3.4.3.2 Workshop objectives .........................................................................................57 3.4.3.3 Workshop preparation .......................................................................................58 3.4.3.4 Workshop implementation ................................................................................59 3.5 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................60 Chapter 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ........................................................................61 4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................61 4.2 Description and value of selected sites..........................................................................61 4.2.1 Horsh Ehden nature reserve.....................................................................................61 4.2.2 Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve ................................................................................62 4.3 Threat Reduction Assessment Index ..............................................................................63 4.3.1 Horsh Ehden nature reserve results .........................................................................63 4.3.1.1 Horsh Ehden TRA Index 1 (1997-2002)...........................................................64 4.3.1.2 Horsh Ehden TRA Index 2 (2002-2009)...........................................................65 4.3.1.3 Interpretation and implications .........................................................................67 4.3.2 Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve results.....................................................................69 4.3.2.1 Al-Chouf Cedar TRA Index..............................................................................69 4.3.2.2 Interpretation and implications .........................................................................71 4.3.3 Threat Reduction Assessment feedback ..................................................................72 4.4 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................73 Chapter 5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................75 5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................75

viii

5.2 Resolution of the research problem ...............................................................................75 5.2.1 Threat Reduction Assessment tool acceptance........................................................75 5.2.2 Threat Reduction Assessment tool adaptability to the local context.......................75 5.2.3 Threat Reduction Assessment tool potential for integration into management plans ..........................................................................................................................................76 5.2.4 Positive impact of Threat Reduction Assessment tool use on management practice ..........................................................................................................................................77 5.3 Study limitations ............................................................................................................78 5.4 Recommendations ..........................................................................................................79 5.5 Research contribution....................................................................................................80 5.6 Conclusion .....................................................................................................................80 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................82 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................90 Appendix A: TRA workshop introductory presentation.......................................................90 Appendix B: TRA workshop preparatory tool .....................................................................96 Appendix C: TRA Workbook..............................................................................................101 Appendix D: TRA feedback sheet.......................................................................................111 Appendix E: Picture gallery ..............................................................................................112 Appendix E.1 Horsh Ehden nature reserve ....................................................................112 Appendix E.2 Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve ................................................................114

ix

List of Tables Table 1: International Union for Conservation of Nature protected area classification ......................22 Table 2: Protected area classification system by management category and governance type............23 Table 3: Old unofficial classification of protected areas in Lebanon .................................................45 Table 4: Nature reserves types and regulatory designation in Lebanon .............................................46 Table 5: Threat Reduction Assessment Index for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve (spring 1997- spring 2002)...............................................................................................................................................65 Table 6: Threat Reduction Assessment Index 2 for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve Core Zone (spring 2002-spring 2009) ...........................................................................................................................65 Table 7: Threat Reduction Assessment Index 2 for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve Buffer Zone (spring 2002-spring 2009) ...........................................................................................................................66 Table 8: Threat Reduction Assessment Index for Al-Shouf Cedar Nature Reserve (summer 2006spring 2009) ....................................................................................................................................70 Table 9: Participant feedback on the Threat Reduction Assessment tool...........................................73

x

List of Figures Fig. 1: Summarized chart of a protected area management plan cycle ..............................................27 Fig. 2: Protected area management and assessment cycle .................................................................30 Fig. 3: Elements of the WCPA Framework reflected in the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire...........32 Fig. 4: Map of Lebanon ...................................................................................................................36 Fig. 5: Flag of the Republic of Lebanon...........................................................................................40 Fig. 6: Map of nature reserves in Lebanon .......................................................................................46 Fig. 7: Management model under the Protected Areas Project..........................................................47 Fig. 8: Triangular management model proposed under SISPAM ......................................................48

xi

List of Abbreviations AFD AFDC APAC ASC AUB BZ CBD CIA COP CZ DG EC EIC EPC FOHE FON GAC GEF GIS GL GOL GTZ HBF IUCN LEB LEDO LGIC LU MAB MDG METT MEA MOA MOE MOF MT NCSR NBSAP NGO NR PA PAD PAP POWPA RAPPAM

Agence Francaise de Developpement Association for Forest Development and Conservation Appointed Protected Area Committee Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve American University of Beirut Buffer Zone Convention on Biological Diversity Central Intelligence Agency Conference of the Parties Core Zone Director General European Commission Environment Information Centre Environment Protection Committee Friends of Horsh Ehden Friends of Nature Government Appointed Committee Global Environment Facility Geographic Information System Green Line association Government of Lebanon German Technical Cooperation (english translation) Heinrich Boell Foundation International Union for Conservation of Nature Lebanon Lebanese Environment and Development Observatory Lebanese Global Information Centre Lebanese University Man and Biosphere Millennium Development Goal Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ministry of Agriculture Ministry of Environment Ministry of Finance Management Team National Council for Scientific Research National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Non-Governmental Organization Nature Reserve Protected Area Protected Areas Department Protected Areas Project Programme of Work on Protected Areas Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management xii

SCBD SCR SISPAM SPNL TNC TRA UN UNDP UNEP UNESCO WB WCMC WCPA WDPA WWF YMCA

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity Shouf Cedar Reserve Stable Institutional Structure for Protected Areas Management Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon The Nature Conservancy Threat Reduction Assessment United Nations United Nations Development Programme United Nations Environment Programme United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization World Bank World Conservation Monitoring Centre World Commission on Protected Areas World Database on Protected Areas World Wildlife Fund Young Men’s Christian Association

xiii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Conservation of biodiversity has been gaining more and more momentum as the rate of land degradation and habitat loss has been increasing over the past decades (MEA 2005). Since biological diversity is a wealth that impacts local and regional developments as well as global human welfare, mitigating threats to its loss is becoming the focus of several international efforts (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Anthony 2008). The creation of protected areas (PAs) has been one of the most common strategies of conservation efforts (Margules and Pressey 2000; UNEP-WCMC 2008). Although biodiversity was the initial focus of PAs, these areas are increasingly serving academic and/or economic goals, or in some cases, for preserving important cultural sites or monuments (UNEPWCMC 2008). The worldwide value of PAs has been recognized through their significant role in reaching global goals as highlighted in the 2000 Millennium Declaration’s seventh Millennium Development Goal (MDG 7), as well as in the 7th meeting of the Conference of the Parties

(COP) to the Convention on Biological

Diversity (CBD) in 2004 (UNEP-WCMC 2008). This increasing worldwide importance of PAs has attracted thousands of projects and resources invested in conservation. However, recent reports still show that conservation has been progressing slowly and erratically (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002). The two major challenges that conservation experts have been facing are (1) setting clear conservation goals, and (2) developing appropriate methods to measure progress towards these goals (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002; Tucker et al. 2005). The second challenge refers specifically to the measure of effectiveness or performance of management in reaching conservation goals. In order to address this issue, the development of appropriate tools for monitoring management effectiveness and conservation project success remains to be tackled. Monitoring is an essential component of systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000), and of adaptive management (Holling 1978; Salafsky et al. 2001b; Tucker 2005). At the level of monitoring conservation area management, there is

14

a fundamental debate on the best surrogates or indicators to be used (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001). Surrogates and indicators can be generally grouped in two categories: biological indicators and threats. Although these markers are at best used as complementary, “threat indicators” are proven to be easier and more costeffective to use as compared to biological indicators (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Anthony 2008). Recent efforts from international experts have led to the development of management monitoring tools that incorporate “threat indicators”. The most popular is the IUCN-WCPA Framework, which provided a guideline for the development of other tools and the Threat Reduction Assessment (TRA) method focusing completely on threats. Global conservation issues are reflected in Lebanon, a small country in the EastMediterranean basin rich in biodiversity. The official protection of endangered plant and animal species is a recent activity started and accelerated after the signature of the CBD in 1992 and its ratification in 1994 (MOE 2006c; Sattout et al. 2006). The first three Nature Reserves (NRs) designated by the Ministry Of Environment (MOE) in Lebanon were Horsh Ehden, Al-Shouf Cedar and Palm Islands (UNDP 1995). The establishment of these PAs was accompanied by management and monitoring plans developed in consultation with international organizations under the first PA project in Lebanon (the Protected Area Project/PAP) (Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000a; Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000b; MOE and LU 2004a; MOE and LU 2004b; MOE 2006b). Lebanon currently counts eight nature reserves (MOE 2006b).

1.2 Justification for research Monitoring and evaluation of PA management effectiveness in Lebanon (in reaching the conservation objectives since PAP) has concentrated on GIS modelling and on the use of biological indicator species (UNDP 1995; Sattout et al. 1998; Jaradi 2000). The need for a more “site-specific” tool that would evaluate management performance was identified as part of the SISPAM project (2004) (MOE 2006b). This project identified major gaps in the previous management system that negatively impacted management effectiveness: high level of bureaucracy, rigid management structure (vertical), lack of sustainable funding, employment issues for the nature reserve management teams, and absence of

15

effective management-oriented site-specific monitoring tools (Hagen and Gerard 2004). Although an adapted version of the METT tool was developed during the SISPAM project (MOE and EcoDit 2006a), its use has been limited to one occasion and the decision for implementing it regularly has not yet been ratified by the Government (ElJisr pers. comm.; Khater pers. comm.). This background strongly suggests an urgent need for a site-specific, practical and cost-effective monitoring tool that would enhance the monitoring of management progress and performance in achieving PA management objectives in Lebanon (Hagen and Gerard 2004).

1.3 Aim and objectives The present research aims at improving management effectiveness of forest PAs in Lebanon through improved monitoring. To achieve this aim the following objectives have been set: 1. Select a monitoring tool with high potential to be effectively and regularly used to improve management effectiveness of PAs in Lebanon. 2. Introduce the tool to relevant stakeholders. 3. Administer the tool, understand and interpret results with stakeholders. 4. Ensure sustainability of the use of this tool in the future.

1.4 Methods and justification Methods used to achieve these objectives included archival research in local libraries, interviews with key people and continuous communication via meetings and emails. The empirical work was conducted through workshops that aimed at the introduction and training on the use of the tool; administration of the tool and discussion of results. After reviewing the literature, the TRA tool was chosen for testing on Lebanon PAs because of the following criteria: 

simple and practical;



cost-effective;



doesn’t require updated baseline data (ie. inventories);

16



provides a quantitative fast measure of progress towards management objectives under a conservation project; and



site-specific yet can be used for comparison of performance across nature reserves (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001).

The TRA tool was developed by Margoluis and Salafsky in 1999, and has been used in several countries (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999; Persha and Rodgers 2002; Mugisha and Jacobson 2004; Anthony 2008). The tool focuses on monitoring the reduction in direct threats (human-induced) to the PA biodiversity and consequently provides an indirect measure of conservation project/management actions’ success (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001). The limitations of this method will be discussed in chapters 2 and 5.

1.5 Research problem This research will try to answer the following question: Is the TRA tool well-suited for monitoring management effectiveness of forest protected areas in Lebanon? In this context, suitability is defined as: 1. acceptance by stakeholders, 2. adaptability to the Lebanese PA structure and situation, 3. potential for integrating the TRA tool into current or future PA management plans, and 4. positive impact of TRA use on management effectiveness.

1.6 Hypothesis Initial literature suggests the following hypothesis: The TRA method is a suitable tool to be introduced and used regularly in monitoring management effectiveness of PAs in Lebanon. Due to the need for an established management system (more or less experienced management team), the scope of the research has been limited to Forest nature reserves with an established management system and some level of experience in management.

17

Accordingly, two sites were selected as a pilot-study for Lebanese PAs: Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserves.

1.7 Report structure This report is structured around five main chapters. The second chapter is a review of the literature in conservation and management of PAs internationally and locally (in Lebanon), highlighting the importance of improving PA management effectiveness. The third chapter details the methods used for data collection and empirical research. The fourth chapter summarizes and discusses the results of the research. Chapter 5 discusses the results further in the perspective of the research problem and objectives. This last chapter also presents the study’s contribution to research, its limitations, and future recommendations.

18

Chapter 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of major concepts, definitions and issues for understanding the research and justifying its value. It includes two sections. The first provides a general review of the underlying international literature relating to definitions, policy and international agendas, management and monitoring. In the second part, the state of PAs in Lebanon and their context are summarized and the major gaps in management are highlighted. Ultimately, this review attempts to present the global conservation situation and its reflection in the local Lebanese context, while highlighting gaps at the origin of the need for more effective monitoring of PA management performance. It provides a justification for the relevance of the current work in light of the background international and local experiences.

2.2 International background 2.2.1 Protected area definition The most widely adopted definition of a PA is the one developed by IUCN (formerly known as the World Conservation Union) at the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas in 1992: “an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means” (IUCN 1994, 2). This definition is used by the UNEP and WCMC as a basis for recording PA global information in the WDPA database. In 2008, IUCN redefined a PA as “A clearly defined geographical space recognized, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values” (Dudley 2008; UNEP and WCMC 2008, 5). Another popular definition of a PA is the one developed by the CBD, and used by some 191 countries that are party of the Convention: “a geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives” (Chape et al. 2005, 444; UNEP-WCMC 2008).

19

All mentioned definitions agree on the following criteria of a PA: defined/recognized space with boundaries, regulation, management, specific conservation/preservation objectives, and indefinite time-line.

2.2.2 Protected area concept evolution A brief review of the creation and development of the PA concept helps understand better how these definitions originated. Preserving a defined area with high ecological and/or cultural values started as spontaneous initiatives within communities to prohibit the exploitation of certain species or protect sites with sacred values (Margules and Pressey 2000; Chape et al. 2005). As far back as the 2nd to 3rd centuries BC, wildlife conservation areas were being created by the Mauryan kings of India (Grove 1995; Chape et al. 2005). Since these ancient times, people have learned to respond to perceived threats to nature and its values by creating the concept of conservation of areas translated into what we call today a protected area (McNeely 1998; Chape et al. 2005). As societies evolved and human exploitation of resources accelerated in the 19th century, humans perceived an increasing need for PAs. Knowledge and work on conservation particularly evolved in the 1960s with the creation and marked presence of world conservation organizations such as the IUCN and the WCPA. In 1962, world meetings and PA reporting started with the launch of the 1st World Conference on National Parks, and the UN General Assembly resolution to start a UN list reporting system to record the status of the world’s PAs (Chape et al. 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2008). Today, the 5th World Parks Congress has already taken place in Durban and the latest UN list report came out the same year in 2003 (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; IUCN 2005b). Another important development concerning PAs was the WDPA project started by UNEP and IUCN in 1981 (UNEPWCMC 2008). The WDPA is now the largest information database on world marine and terrestrial PAs (Chape et al. 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2008). This database reports the evolution in numbers and sizes (coverage) of world PAs. In 1992-1994, the CBD brought a new understanding of the PA concept which evolved to integrate the notions of sustainable use of resources and ecological services. This broadened the perception of a PA from an isolated entity to a component of an integrated network where human development, nature and values are inseparable (Phillips 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend et al.

20

2004). This new understanding of a PA was reinforced by several lines of thinking in the 1990s including: 

Protected areas are connected to each other within a national, regional and international network, and are one essential component of national, regional or international conservation strategies



“Disturbances” from human activities within PA ecological limits affect conservation efforts and PA objectives



Inclusion of local communities, NGOs and/or private sector in PA management can enhance the progress towards conservation efforts (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004).

2.2.3 Policy and international agendas Recognizing the importance of conservation has translated into various international conventions, the most prominent of which is the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD was signed by 150 world government leaders in the Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit in 1992, and entered into force in 1993 (Chape et al. 2003; SCBD 2004; UNEP-WCMC 2008). In 2007, around 191 nations had ratified this convention (UNEPWCMC 2008). This agreement recognized the fact that conservation is not only about preserving “nature” as an independent entity but more about preserving environmental resources, services and values while ensuring economic growth and the sustenance of a growing population with increasing human needs (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; SCBD 2004). This was translated into the three main targets of the convention: “the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources” (SCBD 2000, 2). With time, PAs gained more importance in international agendas encompassing the mere goal of conservation. Indeed PAs are implicitly mentioned in the MDGs (adopted by 189 nations in 2000) as goal 7: “Ensure environmental sustainability”, target 9: “integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs and reverse the loss of environmental resources” (UNEP 2007). They are explicitly stated as part of five indicators chosen to measure progress towards target 9 as indicator 26: “ratio of area protected to maintain biological diversity to surface area”

21

(UNEP 2007; UNEP-WCMC 2008). Moreover in CBD/COP7 (2004) a Programme of Work on Protected Areas (POWPA) was established to support the achievement of the following international goals and agendas: 

The CBD strategic plan to reduce significantly biodiversity loss by 2010



The Johannesburg World Summit 2002 sustainable development plan



The MDGs (Chape et al. 2003; UNEP 2007; UNEP-WCMC 2008) To evaluate progress towards its goals, the POWPA set the following objectives:

“At least 10 percent of each of the world’s ecological regions effectively conserved” (Decision 30, Target 1.1) (UNEP-WCMC 2008, 7); and “To assess and monitor protected area status and trends” (Target 4.3) (UNEP-WCMC 2008, 7). These decisions were followed by an invitation to all parties to develop effective monitoring systems. These systems would monitor PA coverage, status and trends at national, regional and global scales, and help evaluate progress towards biodiversity targets (UNEP-WCMC 2008). 2.2.4 Protected area categories and governance As mentioned earlier, management is at the core of the PA definition. Consequently, as PA management objectives were shaped by world development agendas and objectives, the evolution of PA understanding led to the creation of a standard PA categorization by IUCN in 1994 (IUCN 1994). This classification is based on PA primary management objectives and provides a common lexicon for international communication. It distinguishes six categories of PAs, with the first category split into two sub-categories (Ia and Ib) (IUCN 1994) (table 1). Different categories reflect a different degree of human intervention in regulation or direct resource use (UNEP-WCMC 2008). Table 1: International Union for Conservation of Nature protected area classification Category Definition Primary management objective Ia strict nature reserve science and research Ib wilderness area wilderness protection II national park ecosystem protection and recreation III natural monument conservation of specific natural features IV habitat/species management area conservation through management intervention V protected landscape/seascape landscape/seascape conservation and recreation VI managed resource protected area sustainable use of natural ecosystem Source: IUCN 1994; Chape et al. 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2008

22

This classification has been used and encouraged by the CBD as well (UNEPWCMC 2008). However, an identified gap in this categorization is the lack of reference to governance type which depends specifically on the authority holding decision-making powers and accountable for management outcomes (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; UNEP-WCMC 2008). To address this gap, four types of PA governance were identified and discussed in the Durban Congress in 2003: government management, comanagement, private management and community management (for a communityconserved PA) (Borrini-Feyerabend 2004; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004). An internationally recognized PA categorization matrix (table 2) developed by Philipps (2003) provides an integrated categorization of both IUCN PA categories and PA governance types. Table 2: Protected area classification system by management category and governance type

Source: Philipps 2003; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004

The co-management concept comprises two major forms of governance. The first is collaborative management where decision-making authority, responsibility and

23

accountability are retained by a government institution. This institution gets support from multiple stakeholders for technical support concerning regulation and management. The second is joint management where the decisions, authority and accountability are equally shared by many parties (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004). 2.2.5 Conservation and protected area issues International attention and efforts towards conservation successfully increased PA numbers and area coverage. In 2007, the WDPA recorded more than 120,000 PAs worldwide covering around 12% of earth land surface (Chape et al. 2005; UNEP-WCMC 2008). However, there is evidence that the current system of PAs is not reaching the biodiversity conservation objectives it was set for (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002; WWF 2007; SCBD 2009). As nature reserves, PAs have two major roles: representing biodiversity of the region and separating it from the threats that can impact their existence and persistence in the wild (Margules and Pressey 2000). The literature on PAs so far indicates that either one or both roles are not being fulfilled. More details are provided below.

2.2.5.1 Biodiversity representation The PA-related indicators of conservation success (refer to section 2.2.3) adopted by international agendas can be described as largely prone to bias. Indeed, neither “area coverage” nor “land area protected” provide reliable representation of biodiversity coverage (Margules and Pressey 2000; Chape et al. 2005, Tucker 2005; UNEP 2007). The MDG Indicator 26: Protected Areas Report (UNEP 2007) has clearly stated one major reason behind this fact: “biological diversity […] is not evenly distributed: for any given aspect of biological diversity, invariably some areas are richer than others” (UNEP 2007, 8). Consequently, the relationship between the proportions of PA land coverage and biodiversity in the same area is not clearly defined. Moreover, current trends in PA coverage and land proportion suggest that the 10% target has been already reached in 2006, but is likely to be representing less than half of the world’s biological diversity (UNEP 2007). Moreover, some PAs don’t have clear biodiversity conservation targets (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002). One

24

potential reason for this is the shift in PA use from ecological, to economic and recreational purposes (the case of IUCN PA categories V and VI). This observation is at the origin of an international debate on whether such areas should even be included in the general network of WDPA PAs (UNEP 2007). Despite these issues “area protected to maintain biological diversity” (WDPA data) remains the only global measure available to monitor progress in reaching conservation goals (Chape et al. 2005; UNEP 2007).

2.2.5.2 Increasing direct threats to biodiversity and protected areas The presence of human threats towards PA systems has been recognized with the evolution of the PA concept to integrate human society and nature in one network (refer to section 2.2.2). Threats are often mentioned in literature as “disturbances”, “pressures” or “impacts” on natural ecosystems (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2004; Tucker et al. 2005). Human threats range from pollution to wood logging, plant harvesting etc. and cause a direct impact on biodiversity, habitats and ecosystem functions. Threats have increased with industrialization and accelerated the exploitation of natural resources (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002; Chape et al. 2005; MEA 2005; Tucker 2005). Indeed, literature indicates that direct threats (with direct impact on ecosystems) on PAs have become severe and widespread (Brandon et al. 1998; Oates 1999; Carey et al. 2000; Bruner et al. 2001; Chape et al. 2005). International meetings for conservation have recently emphasized the importance of assessing key threats to PA systems and taking appropriate actions to reduce these threats. General recommendations from the 5th World Parks Congress included “WCPA should consider creating specific task forces to examine the most important threats facing protected areas and to address the emerging issues highlighted in these proceedings” (IUCN 2005a, 92). Moreover, the 2004-2006 first-phase implementation results of the POWPA have been reviewed by the COP8 in 2006; activities undertaken to fill in the gaps included assessment of key threats (SCBD 2009). The increased attention of conservation practitioners to pressures on PAs was accompanied by attempts to classify them into standard categories (Salafsky et al. 2002). These efforts culminated in a recent publication by IUCN of a “Standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: unified

25

classifications of threats and actions” categorizing direct threats into eleven main categories (Salafsky et al. 2008).

2.2.5.3 Management effectiveness The gap in existing indicators to measure PA effectiveness in reaching conservation goals combined with the significant rise in global impacts of human activities on PA conservation capacity created an “urgent” need to improve PA management effectiveness within the short (2010) deadline of the CBD agenda (Chape et al. 2005). As reported by IUCN: “Many protected areas around the world are not effectively managed. In response, management effectiveness will continue as a priority with a focus on improving on and learning from past approaches” (IUCN-WCPA 2009, 1). Many initiatives were taken for this end, for example, as part of the COP7 POWPA, nations have committed to develop assessment systems to report on PA effectiveness for 30% of their PAs by 2010 (WWF 2007). Another initiative is part of the latest CBD/COP8 meeting, where the delegates reviewing the first POWPA implementation phase highlighted the need to improve PA management effectiveness by tackling the following underlying issues: lack of financial resources; lack of technical assistance and capacity-building for PA management staff; bad governance; political, legislative and institutional barriers (UNEP 2006; SCBD 2009). On the other hand, as part of technical assistance and capacity building, one solution highlighted by international experts is to create cost-effective evaluation tools for monitoring progress towards management targets. As highlighted in the Durban Congress recommendations: “New methodologies to assess management effectiveness should be developed to address the specific gaps identified […] including rapid, site level assessments of both management effectiveness and threats” (IUCN 2005b, 92). Actions taken in this perspective include the recent development by the IUCN WCPA of a “Protected Areas Programme” which partially aims at providing capacity-building for increasing management effectiveness of PAs through the provision of guidance, tools and other information, and a vehicle for networking (IUCN-WCPA 2009).

26

2.2.6 Protected area management and monitoring 2.2.6.1 Management planning Management effectiveness can be better understood through a review of the PA management planning cycle (fig. 1) and major concepts of PA management (Margules and Pressey 2000; Tucker et al. 2005).

Fig. 1: Summarized chart of a protected area management plan cycle

The model presented (fig. 1) matches the description of adaptive management, a form of management that entails a continuous process of evaluating action impacts in light of specified objectives, and making appropriate adjustments in the plan in order to adapt it to the evaluation results (Margules and Pressey 2000). This form of management has also been defined as an “integration of design, management, and monitoring to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and learn” (Salafsky et al. 2001a; Salafsky et al. 2002, 2) Adaptive management has been recommended by most experts in conservation planning as essential to effective PA management since the nature of ecological systems is complex and not yet fully understood (Holling 1978; Margules and Pressey 2000; Salafsky et al. 2002; Tucker 2005). From this perspective, this form of management creates a more sustainable management system with better chances of long-term

27

effectiveness. Frequent communication between stakeholders including the PA management staff, government agencies, funding bodies, local community/NGOs and other involved parties is also highly recommended in systematic conservation planning (Margules and Pressey 2000; Salafsky et al. 2002; Tucker 2006). A participatory approach to management engaging multi-disciplinary management teams and encouraging participation of all stakeholders in management decisions is recommended as part of adaptive management systems (Tucker et al. 2005). Although adaptive and participatory management systems have been widely recommended worldwide, alternative systems can be better suited for some PAs depending on specific characteristics of the country’s political, cultural, social and economic contexts (Bachir 2005).

2.2.6.2 Monitoring concept and issues Monitoring has been best described as “the collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate changes in condition and progress toward meeting a management objective” (Elzinga et al. 2001; Tucker 2005, 24). As one essential component of adaptive management (Holling 1978; Salafsky et al. 2001b; Tucker 2005), monitoring involves a continuous evaluation of progress towards project goals and preservation of the intrinsic value of species from internal or external threats (Margules and Pressey 2000). Monitoring is also an essential part of conservation systematic planning as it constitutes the last out of six stages as defined by Margules and Pressey (2000). At the level of monitoring conservation area management, there is a fundamental debate on the best surrogates or indicators to be used (Margules and Pressey 2000; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001). Surrogates and indicators can be generally grouped in two categories: biological indicators and threats. Although these markers are at best used as complementary, a comparison of these two types of indicators has proven that “threat indicators” are easier and more cost-effective and efficient to use as compared to biological indicators. Biological indicators have been reported as being far more complex to measure and interpret, and often very costly (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Anthony 2008). On the other hand, the most commonly reported problem of monitoring programs is the collection of too much data that is not tied to PA management needs, which makes

28

them irrelevant to key management questions (Tucker 2005; Tucker et al. 2005). Consequently, it is essential to develop and apply monitoring plans AFTER clearly defining PA management objectives (Margules and Pressey 2000; Tucker 2005; Tucker et al. 2005).

2.2.6.3 Monitoring tools The review of the literature so far demonstrated the rising need for effective monitoring tools that assess progress towards general management objectives of PAs including the reduction of direct threats and other conservation objectives. Several tools and indicators have been developed by international organizations and experts to address this gap. However, there is no one standard tool that is globally accepted so far (Chape et al. 2005). The most widely recognized ones relevant to this research are summarized below.

World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) Framework The IUCN-WCPA task force responded to the need for management effectiveness tracking tools by developing in 1997 a framework that aims at providing overall guidance in the development of more adapted assessment systems and to encourage the presence of standards for assessment and reporting (Hockings et al. 2000; WWF and WB 2003). The WCPA framework was developed based on the concept that good PA management is based on six elements: context, planning, inputs, processes, outputs, outcomes. The WCPA Framework is build around the Management and Assessment cycle presented in figure 2.

29

Fig. 2: Protected area management and assessment cycle Source: Ervin 2003, 4, adapted from Hockings et al. 2000.

In summary, the cycle starts by an understanding of the context of values and threats present in the PA. It then progresses through planning, allocating resources and processing management actions. These result in products and services that have a final impact on management objectives (Hockings et al. 2000; WWF and WB 2003; WWF 2007). The WCPA framework also stresses the importance of establishing clear, measurable, and outcome-based objectives as a basis for the whole management process and for better monitoring results (MacKinnon et al. 1986; Tucker 2005). The WCPA provided the first consistent approach to managing PA effectiveness, and has been used by many other experts/organizations to develop more specific assessment tools (eg. METT and RAPPAM). Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) The METT was developed and published in 2003 based on the WCPA Framework. It was created to help the WB -WWF Alliance in monitoring progress towards achieving their management effectiveness target for forest PAs : “75 million hectares of existing forest protected areas under improved management to achieve conservation and development outcomes by 2010” (WWF 2007, 2). The METT was not designed to be the sole tool for monitoring of PA management effectiveness but rather to complement more thorough assessment methods as part of adaptive management. The tool has later been adopted by

30

other organizations such as GEF (as mandatory to all projects), and has been modified by others to be applied to Marine and Wetland reserves. An updated version incorporating the modifications made over time after a worldwide use by a wide range of countries was released in 2007 (WWF 2007). The methodology consists of a rapid assessment based on a scorecard questionnaire that includes the six elements of management (as defined by the WCPA Framework). It is simple to use and provides a mechanism for monitoring progress to more effective management over time. It is used to enable stakeholders to identify needs, obstacles and prioritize actions to improve the effectiveness of PA management (WWF 2007). The METT instrument is administered in two parts: (two) datasheets and an assessment form. 

Datasheets: The first datasheet records basic information about the site, and assessment details. The second datasheet asks assessors to identify threats (based on the IUCN 2006 generic list of PA potential threats) and rank their impact on the PAs.



Assessment Form: briefly, the assessment is based on 30 questions presented in a table with three columns that should be completed for recording details of the assessment. As part of the assessment, a score should be assigned to each question ranging from 0 (poor) to 3 (excellent).

One of the major disadvantages of this tool is that the score obtained doesn’t allow for comparison of management effectiveness across sites, since it is only designed to track the progress of one site (WWF 2007). Another limitation is that METT doesn’t allow for detailed evaluation of outcomes, instead it provides a rapid on-site evaluation of progress in management steps (WWF 2007). Moreover, although METT provides a quantitative result (a final score), which might be considered a positive aspect of the tool, the system of “scoring” progress is “fraught with difficulties and possibilities for distortion” (WWF 2007, 7). For example, the scoring system assumes that all 30 questions deal with issues of equal weight, whereas some parts of the questionnaire (eg. condition of biodiversity) deserve a higher weight than others (WWF 2007).

31

Rapid Assessment and Prioritization of Protected Area Management (RAPPAM) tool Another tool developed and based on the WCPA Framework is the RAPPAM methodology created by WWF between 1999 and 2002 (Ervin 2003). The tool’s main purpose is the prioritization of budget allocations for the PA system based on PA management needs (Ervin 2003). The tool consists of a Rapid Assessment Questionnaire that covers all elements of the WCPA Framework with more focus on two areas: contextual issues and management effectiveness (Ervin 2003).

Fig. 3: Elements of the WCPA Framework reflected in the Rapid Assessment Questionnaire Source: Ervin 2003, 5.

Important outputs of RAPPAM include lists of the most common threats, management strengths and weaknesses, prioritization of PAs with respect to their vulnerability, and other comparative data on studied aspects of management. Threats typically include: 

Past pressures: forces, activities, events that have already negatively impacted the integrity of the PA (eg. legal or illegal activities).



Future threats: potential pressures likely to cause a detrimental impact to occur and maybe persist.

The scoring system used in RAPPAM consists of a 4 selection scale (no=0, mostly no=1, mostly yes=3, yes=5), where ‘yes’ reflects an ideal situation. Threats (vulnerability) are rated according to two main criteria: trend and severity (extent, impact and prevalence) (Ervin 2003).

32

The main limitation of RAPPAM is the subjectivity in assigning scores since it is mainly perception-based and qualitative in nature (Ervin 2003). On the other hand, RAPPAM is most effective when conducted in a series of workshops (over 2-3 days) with interactive participation of a wide range of stakeholders: government authority, direct management staff, administrators, policy makers and local communities. This could be a limitation as well since it could make the process complicated and unpractical (time-consuming) depending on the context.

Threat Reduction Assessment tool The IUCN-WCPA (METT) and WWF (RAPPAM) approaches both include an assessment of threats and vulnerability. However, the TRA method created by Margoluis and Salafsky in 1999 provides a more focused approach concentrated on direct threats to the conservation and to the PA system (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Tucker 2005). The TRA method is based on the concept that monitoring threats (to the achievement of the targeted state of biodiversity) can provide an indirect measure of conservation success (Tucker 2005). TRA is used as part of adaptive management to orient and define actions to be taken in order to improve the conservation project success. These actions typically relate to policy development and implementation, regulation, governance, funding or other indirect factors impacting PAs (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Salafsky et al. 2002).

The TRA tool is mainly composed of two worksheets: 

Worksheet 1: defines the project and assessment details (eg. geographical area, time frame); and provides a data sheet for the list of identified important threats (between 2 and 12), their ranking based on 3 criteria (area, intensity, urgency), a percent threat reduction score, and other calculations that integrate the ranking scores and threat reduction scores to obtain a final TRA Index Score (expresses overall threat reduction in percentage).



Worksheet 2: is created for providing a clear definition of each threat and its 100% reduction target.

33

Advantages: The TRA tool has many advantages compared to previously mentioned methods: 

It produces one quantitative result (TRA Index) expressed as a percentage which reflects performance of management in reducing threats (as part of their management objectives) over a certain period of time.



The TRA Index scores can be used to monitor changes within one PA if TRA is applied regularly. It can also be used to compare performance across many PAs if other conditions are similar (same project, time frame etc.).



It is simple and practical. TRA is easier to use, less time-consuming and more cost-effective than more comprehensive approaches as it requires minimal resources and can be done through one session with the stakeholders most knowledgeable about the area.



It is more concise and focuses on one aspect of management effectiveness with great impact on biodiversity (threats), which creates more opportunity to make improvements on that specific area compared to making regular general assessments.

Compared to the state of biodiversity indicators, TRA advantages include its potential to detect changes over short periods of time. Moreover, TRA is far more simple and cost-effective than methods used with biological indicators. Despite these advantages, the TRA tool can’t replace biodiversity indicators and is better applied in parallel to these tools as a more comprehensive monitoring of conservation projects success (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Tucker 2005).

Disadvantages: The TRA method disadvantages include mainly: 

Subjectivity in assessing score rankings and “threat reduction scores” that can largely rely on qualitative estimation by participants (Salafsky and Margoluis 1999; Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Persha and Rodgers 2002; Tucker 2005).



The exclusion of “threat increase” or “threat appearance” from the scoring mechanism (Anthony 2008).

34

Many modifications have been made to improve the TRA method and reduce its disadvantages. First, subjectivity can be partially or fully eliminated by supporting the “threat reduction score” with quantitative hard data. This data can be obtained using various methods to assess threat criteria (area, degree, urgency) (eg. GIS for changes in land cover due to agricultural expansion), or simply by recording occurrences (eg. cutting trees) (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Persha and Rodgers 2002). Second, a modified version of the TRA tool that incorporates a negative score has been created and used by Anthony (2008) in South Africa. This negative score incorporates the worsening or appearance of a new threat and its level of increase during the evaluation period, and allows for a more representative assessment of real-life situations where threats can increase (Anthony 2008).

Different PA sites and networks have different characteristics (eg. management structure, geographical coverage and variation) and are part of different cultural, political and socio-economic contexts. Consequently, the tool chosen for monitoring management effectiveness has to be adapted to the specific settings, capacities, needs and objectives of the PA or PA network. Regardless of the tool chosen and results obtained in the process of improving PA management effectiveness, ultimately, if the biodiversity objectives of conservation are still not being met, conservation projects are failing (Salafsky et al. 2002).

2.3 Local background 2.3.1 General information on Lebanon Lebanon is located in the East-Mediterranean Basin at a crossroads between Asia, Europe and Africa, with a total surface area of 10,452 km2. Its neighbouring countries include Syria in the north and east, and Israel (Occupied Palestine) in the south (fig. 2). West to east of the country, the topography consists of a 225 km narrow coastal strip, the Mount Lebanon high mountain range parallel to the coast, the Bekaa valley, and the AntiLebanon mountain range (fig.2) (UNDP 1995; CIA 2009). The highest mountain peak (Qornet el Sawda at 3090 m.a.s.l.) of the country is part of Mount Lebanon on its north end (Abu Izzeddin et al. 2000a; CIA 2009). Lebanon is a highly mountainous country

35

with high variability in climatic conditions, soils, and socio-economic status (UNDP 2005). The climate is semi-arid Mediterranean, with a wet season extending from November to March and a dry season during the rest of the year. According to 1998 reports, mountains cover the largest area in the country (almost 31%); grazing areas (grassland and forbs) cover 15% of the total area; and barren rocks and forests cover 7% each (MOE 1998b). Lebanon has an estimated population size of about four million (CIA 2009). The three major religious groups are Christians (with a typically Lebanese “Maronite” group), Islam (“Sunnite” and “Shiite”) and Druze. Some areas hold a high majority of the same religious groups (eg. Druze in “Al-Shouf”, and Christian in Ehden), while other regions are more diversified.

Fig. 4: Map of Lebanon “Lebanon Mountains” refers to “Mount Lebanon” Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html

2.3.2 Political situation and instability Lebanon has been influenced and occupied by foreign powers for thousands of years during its history: Sumerian, Babylonian, Ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine

36

and Ottoman empires which culminated with the French mandate from 1920 to 1943 (Abu Izzeddin et al. 2000a; CIA 2009). The end of the French mandate in 1943 was marked by the first independence of the Lebanese territories becoming the Independent Republic of Lebanon (UNDP 1995; CIA 2009). From 1974 to 1990 Lebanon suffered from political instability with a violent civil war (CIA 2009). Conflicts resulted in destruction, significant loss of human resources and weakening of central authority (UNDP 1995). After the lengthy civil war, the Lebanese institutionalized sectarian divisions in the government establishing a more equitable political system. In July 2006, the country suffered from another armed conflict characterized by a massive attack by Israeli air forces on Lebanese territories (HBF 2006). The 34 days intensive war resulted in another wave of massive infrastructure destruction, 1200 civilian casualties, a high level of displacement of people (around 1 million) and a tremendous amount of seawater, soil and air pollution (HBF 2006). Almost one million unexploded cluster bombs were thrown in the south of Lebanon, and 15,000 tons of heavy fuel oil were released into the Mediterranean Sea coast. Many other forms of pollution were observed, notably a high level of air pollution (HBF 2006). After the recent 2006 war, political turmoil created some void in the country. The Lebanese politicians were unable to agree on a successor to Emile Lahud when he stepped down as President in November 2007, creating a political void until the election of Army Commander Michel Suleiman in May 2008 and the creation of a new government in July 2008 (CIA 2009).

2.3.3 Impact of political instability on protected areas After the long civil war, the Government of Lebanon (GOL) was preoccupied with rebuilding the physical infrastructure of the country and overlooked the perilous state of the forests, wildlife and natural resources (UNDP 1995). The economic crisis and the focus on development have shifted national priorities away from the environment and biodiversity more specifically (MOE 2002). Since the basic needs (water, electricity, and infrastructure) were a national priority, the “environment” has been a relatively much neglected sector in the country. This goes hand in hand with a loose enforcement of existing laws that protect natural resources (UNDP 1995). The government institution

37

that handles environmental issues, the Ministry of Environment (MOE), was only created in 1993 with a very small budget. One of the earliest priority areas within its strategy was the conservation of biodiversity. The same year, international experts joined efforts with local NGOs and academic institutions to investigate potential PAs and important bird sites. This led to an IUCN mission to develop a proposal for creating a PA system in Lebanon (PAP project). The more recent war in 2006-2007 created high political instability that retarded many administrative processes in the country, including the work of the MOE and Ministry of Finance (MOF) responsible for funding the management of PAs. The 20062007 annual budgets were cancelled as a consequence of the war, while the 2007-2008 budgets have still not been sent to the management staff of some nature reserves (Hani pers.comm.). Many decisions on legislation have been postponed, some of which pertain to the work of PA management (El-Jisr pers.comm.; Hani pers.comm.).

2.3.4 Biodiversity of Lebanon 2.3.4.1 General biodiversity Lebanon is known for its exceptionally rich and unique biodiversity, the result of a long interaction between the diverse geology, ecology and historic human settlements in the Mediterranean area (Blondel and Aronson 1999). Each geographical region is characterized by a group of unique fauna and flora that reflect particular ecological conditions (MOE 1998b). Lebanon offers a very diverse range of habitat types (coastal areas, islands, rivers and mountains) making it a biodiversity hotspot for plant diversity (Blondel and Aronson 1999; MOE 2006c). The first and only comprehensive biodiversity survey to date was carried out after the ratification of the CBD in 1996 (MOE 2002, 2005). The survey identified 4633 plants and 4486 animal species. These were estimated to represent only 20% of the existing biodiversity (MOE 1998a, 1998b, 2002; UNDP 2005) while it was noted that approximately 43,500 species still needed to be identified (MOE 1998b). Of particular importance in the fauna is the high level of migratory bird populations that transit and rest in Lebanon (UNDP 2005). Birds constitute the most abundant group of vertebrates while invertebrates (insects) form the most abundant and widespread group of terrestrial fauna (MOE 1998b). A major part of terrestrial

38

biodiversity is present in forests naturally rich in cedar, oaks, pines and firs (MOE 1998b).

2.3.4.2 Cedar forests as a natural heritage A national wealth and cultural heritage of the country is the Cedrus libani (Lebanese Cedar). This cedar is believed to be the first tree mentioned in historical texts (Sumerian empire- Third Millennium BC) (Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000a; Abu Izzeddin et al. 2000b). Moreover, the Cedars of Lebanon have played a pivotal role in shaping the history of the Middle-East region. Indeed, their abundance and wood quality represent a valuable resource that has attracted many civilizations to the country which increased the exploitation of the tree wood, until it became overexploited (Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000a). Famous examples of populations that have occupied the country and used cedar wood include (MOE 1998b; Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000b; LGIC 2005): 

Phoenicians: the Phoenicians occupied the East-Mediterranean area in 4000BC (also called Canaanites) and used cedar wood for the production of their boats and trade around 2800BC. Historical records mention that Cedar wood was a major contributor in making Phoenicians the strongest marine traders in the world dominating the Mediterranean sea for over 500 years. The Bible mentions that the Phoenician king Hiram of Tyre (989-936 BC) built a palace for David and a temple and two palaces for Solomon of which one was called 'Forest of Lebanon'. Around the mid of the tenth century BC, craftsmen of Phoenicia used Lebanon’s Cedar and metal to accomplish the work.



Egyptians: built temples and boats with Cedar wood (1800-1200BC).



Babylonians: used the wood to build the city of Babylon (585-538BC).



Romans: exploitation at the time of the Roman empire became a threat to the remaining forests (64BC-500AD).

Today, the relatively small areas of remaining cedar forests are under some form of protection by the government authorities including: the Cedars of Bcharre (Natural Site); Al-Shouf Cedars, Tannourine Cedars and Ehden Cedars as nature reserves protected by MOE legislation (MOE 2006b). Many other cedar forests are protected by a

39

decision from the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) (MOE 2006b). The cedar is perceived as a prominent cultural heritage that needs to be preserved, and is the symbol of the Lebanese land and nation as it features on the Lebanese flag (fig. 5).

Fig. 5: Flag of the Republic of Lebanon Source: www.the-lebanon.com

2.3.5 Direct threats to biodiversity 2.3.5.1 Increasing human threats The rich and unique resources and climate of the country have been attracting human settlement and activities into the area (MOE 1998a). Rising industries from Lebanese resources include the boat industry from wood, and silk production and red-dye (Murex) extraction from shellfish (MOE 1998a; Abu-Izzeddin et al. 2000a). In the First National Report for the CBD, increased human pressures on the environment were highlighted as human developments had accrued significantly (urban, industrial, tourist etc.) with minimal planning and regulation (MOE 1998a). Human overpopulation and urban expansion lead to “severe destructive pressures in the environment endangering the biodiversity state” (MOE 1998a, 5). Identified threats to biodiversity in Lebanon include direct threats from human activities (eg. forest fires), and indirect threats such as political instability, war, economic recession and other social cultural factors. A long history of sustained pressures to the local environment have been identified notably from the following direct pressures (MOE 1998a; MOE 1998b, MOE 2002; Hagen and Gerard 2004): 

Urbanization



Overgrazing of goats



Excessive hunting of wild animals



Quarries 40



Agricultural land expansion



Forest fires (war)



Tourism and tourist resorts



Excessive use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers



Air pollution from industries



Solid and toxic waste open (unregulated) dumping

The Lebanese people have long practiced hunting (mostly birds) for leisure, while other common practices such as grazing and fishing have defined livelihoods of local communities for ages (UNDP 1995; Bachir 2005). The Third National Report for the CBD on Lebanon reported the same threats with less emphasis on the threats that relate to industrial and solid waste pollution (last three in the list above) (UNDP 2005). However, new emphasis was put on “roads and transport” as an important increasing threat; and on the “introduction of alien species” as a potential threat to local biodiversity. Although “alien species” is highly suspected to be a significant threat, there isn’t enough evidence to prove it and national attention to this issue is needed (MOE 2002; UNDP 2005).

2.3.5.2 Impact of direct threats on terrestrial biodiversity The most prominent direct threats to the terrestrial flora (uncontrolled urban development, land reclamation and overgrazing) resulted in half of the wild species of fodder plants becoming endangered (MOE 1998a, 1998b). Forest coverage has declined tremendously: historical records estimate that 74% of Lebanon was covered with forests in the far past, a percentage that has alarmingly declined with a reported deforestation rate of 0.4% according to the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (MOE 1998b). More recent documents reported a coverage of 7% (MOE 1998b), 3.5% in 2002 (MOE 2002) and 13% in 2005 (UNDP 2005). The destruction of vegetative cover and habitats created in turn severe disturbances for terrestrial fauna most notably on a wide variety of birds (MOE 1998a). At the beginning of the 20th century, many wild animals were already extinct including the Syrian Brown Bear, the Persian Lynx, the Arabian Gazelle, the Golden Hamster and Asian Leopard, while others became close to extinction (eg. Wolf, Wild Cat, Mongoose,

41

Squirrel) or vulnerable (eg. Bats, Wild Boar, Weasel and Spiny Mouse) (MOE 1998a, 1998b, 2002).

2.3.5.3 Mitigation of direct threats to biodiversity Legislative measures: The GOL has taken many initiatives to slow down and control the decline of biodiversity and forest loss in the country. Since the signature and ratification of the CBD in 1992 and 1994 respectively, these initiatives have been accelerated. Lebanon drafted its first NBSAP in 1998 setting the ground for a conservation action plan (MOE 1998b). Most of the actions taken for conservation were on the legislative level, with some of the most relevant initiatives in the context of this research being: 

Ministerial Decisions banning hunting in the entire country (1995 and 1997).



The Hunting Law (2004): regulates illegal hunting practices that might have adverse effects on birds’ species, specifically rare, threatened, endangered and/or endemic species.



The Forest Code (amended in 1996): lists all cedar, fir, juniper trees/forests and any other conifer species as protected and forbids their cutting and exportation.



A Decree (2002) banning quarries’ activities except in specified areas with permits.



A Decision by the MOA that regulates harvesting of endemic aromatic and medicinal plants.



Decisions by the MOA that prohibit the import and introduction of cedar seeds and plants.

Managerial measures: The level of threat from toxic industrial waste and domestic waste on PAs was significantly decreased due to improved management measures and regulations implemented (UNDP 2005). On the other hand, many networks and capacity-building efforts were made to decrease forest fires by local NGOs (AFDC) and Ministries, however, the threat remains to be tackled more effectively (UNDP 2005). As for agricultural threats, “much work has been carried out to reduce the negative impacts of

42

agriculture on biodiversity. It is too early to identify yet whether these initiatives have had the desired effect” (UNDP 2005). On the other hand, in the NBSAP, it has been mentioned that “Protecting biodiversity through forest and range management with the expansion and management of PAs are the main objectives at the terrestrial ecosystem level” (MOE 1998b, V). To increase forest cover, a five year reforestation plan was carried out by the MOE to increase vegetation cover from 3.5% to 21% (MOE 2002). However, for PAs, progress towards successful management has been slow due to many obstacles. The first project (1996-2002) to launch the creation of PAs with a management structure in Lebanon was the Protected Areas Project (PAP) executed by the MOE (with the support of UNDP-GEF and IUCN). PAP effectively reduced threats to biodiversity in three PAs created as demonstration parks for Lebanon: Horsh Ehden (forest), Al-Shouf Cedar (forest), and Palm Islands (marine) reserves (MOE 1998a, 2002). Threats were mitigated in these PAs mainly through policy and regulation prohibiting harmful human activities inside the nature reserves (hunting, wood and plant harvesting, introduction of alien species). Nature Reserves management also focused on the development of sustainable tourism by promoting eco-tourism and cooperating closely with local tour operators (UNDP 2005). Differences in management effectiveness and local socialpolitical contexts led to different levels of control and mitigation of threats on the assigned nature reserves (UNDP 1995). The rapid expansion of PAs in Lebanon after the PAP, combined with a lack of national planning and appropriate institutional structure for management and law enforcement made threats difficult to control.

2.3.6 International agreements and conventions Lebanon effectively participated in regional and international agreements, protocols, and ratified many international Conventions directly or indirectly related to natural resources management and biodiversity, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, Basel Convention, Convention to Combat Desertification, Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris 1972), Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, African Eurasian Water Bird Agreement. Lebanon signed the CBD in June 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, and ratified it under Law 360/94 in 1994. So far, Lebanon produced three National Reports to the CBD addressing

43

achievements relating to key articles of the Convention, and is now preparing the Fourth National Report that evaluates progress towards the 2010 goals of the CBD (Jaradi pers.comm.; Khater pers.comm.).

2.3.7 Protected area designation and classification 2.3.7.1 Expansion of protected areas The official designation of PAs in Lebanon started in 1930, and accelerated significantly after the signature and ratification of the CBD (1994). In 2005, the WDPA reported a 7818 ha land cover by PAs, which constitutes 0.75% of the Lebanese land area (Bachir 2005; WDPA 2005). However, reports have revealed a discrepancy between the 2005 WDPA figures and the reported local estimates of land cover (Bachir 2005). According to the Third National Report of Lebanon to the CBD, nature reserves designated by the MOE alone covered 1.8% of the Lebanese territory (UNDP 2005, 131). Potential causes for this gap in figures can be attributed to the lack of official demarcation of PA boundaries, standardized categorization system (IUCN classification), and WDPA regular updating (Bachir 2005). Recent data suggests that progress was made to deal with these gaps locally, while the WDPA 2009 Annual Release report mentioned Lebanon as part of the priority countries for which data will be reviewed and validated in March 2009 (UNEP-WCMC 2009).

2.3.7.2 Classification of protected areas Protected area designation was originally a responsibility of the Ministry of Economy (1930). This mandate was reattributed to several other government agencies including the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture, Water and Energy, and Culture; depending on the typology of the site (MOE 2006b). Accordingly, the label of PA locally has been given to a broad range of categories including: Protected Forests (16), Natural Sites/Natural Monuments (24), Nature Reserves (8), Himas (3) (ancient Arab system of Community Management), and other areas of high tourist or cultural value (MOE 2006b). Classification varies according to designation authority, site characteristics and governance (management system), and regulation/regulatory year (law, decree, decision) that defined the designation (table 3). Different documents reviewed showed a few

44

inconsistencies in reported numbers of PAs (UNDP 2005; MOE 2006b) in each category, reflecting a previous lack of agreement on baseline definitions for classification. The MOE identified this issue when it initiated a restructuring project in 2004 (SISPAM) as it clearly mentioned: “no legally formal PA categories in Lebanon subdivided into five groups [...] of protected sites designated by different national authorities with no clear rationale or criteria for such grouping” (MOE 2006b, 1). Table 3: Old unofficial classification of protected areas in Lebanon Group Definition I Protected sites established pursuant to decree no. 434 (28/03/42) modified by decree no. 836 (09/01/50) II Nature Reserves (Mihmiyat) established by laws since 1992 III Protected sites established by MOE decisions on the base of the law of protection of natural sites (08/07/1939) IV Protected sites established by MOA decision before 1996 and based on the Forest Code (Law 85 from 1991) V Based on the Forest Code (Law 558, dated 24/07/1996) and MoA ministerial decisions Source: http://www.moe.gov.lb/ProtectedAreas/sispam_print.htm

The SISPAM project outlined a new category system for PAs in Lebanon aligned with the international IUCN categorization system (table 1) (MOE and EcoDit 2006b). This work resulted in a classification of all PAs (until 2004) under four IUCN categories: Categories II, III, IV, and V. The remaining IUCN categories were not applicable for Lebanon (MOE and EcoDit 2006b). This classification has not yet been adopted because of the 2006 political turmoil, but is currently being revised by the MOE for re-submission and government approval (Khater pers.comm.; El-Jisr pers. comm.).

2.3.7.3 Nature Reserves Protected areas designated as nature reserves (group II in the old classification) were established since 1992 by MOE legislation voted by the Parliament with the exception of Karm El-Chbat designated by a voted MOE decision (Awad pers. comm.; MOE 2006b). At present, there are eight nature reserves scattered across different areas of the country (figure 6) and varying between forests, coast and marine PAs (table 4). Out of the seven nature reserves designated by law, five are mountain forests (primarily cedar forests) (UNDP 2005).

45

Table 4: Nature reserves types and regulatory designation in Lebanon Nature Reserve 1. Palm, Sanany and Ramkeen Islands 2. Horsh Ehden 3. Al-Shouf Cedar 4. Tyre Coast 5. Tannourine Cedar 6. Yammouneh 7. Bentael 8. Karm Chbat

Type Marine/Islands Forest Forest Coastal zone Forest Forest Forest Forest

Law and year Law 121 of 1992 Law 121 of 1992 Law 532 of 1996 Law 708 of 1998 Law 9 of 1999 Law 10 of 1999 Law 11 of 1999 Decision no 14 of 1995

Source: http://www.moe.gov.lb/ProtectedAreas/categories.htm

Fig. 6: Map of nature reserves in Lebanon Source http://www.moe.gov.lb/ProtectedAreas/naturereserves.htm

2.3.8 Protected area management Most PAs (eg. sites with international designation) have been excluded from management projects, and consequently lack planning and management structures. The establishment

46

of a management structure has been much more characteristic of nature reserves in Lebanon. The first big project for the establishment of a PA network with clear management structure was the PAP (1996-2002) executed by the MOE (supported by UNDP-GEF and IUCN): “Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection, commonly known as the Protected Areas Project (PAP) (LEB/95/G31/A/1G/9)” (UNDP 1995; MOE 1995). The project aimed primarily at “the safeguard of endemic and endangered flora and fauna species by protecting their habitats, and incorporating conservation into sustainable human development” (MOE 1995, 1; UNDP 1995). As part of PAP, this would partially be achieved by establishing a solid management structure in the three demonstration parks as a starting point for the Lebanese PA system (UNDP 1995). Under PAP, a vertical management model was adopted (fig. 7) involving three parties (MOE-GAC-MT) (Awad pers.comm.; Bachir 2005). 1. Ministry of Environment - Protected Area Department: holds central authority and decision-making power through the approval of management plans, budgets, annual work plans, contracts with MT, as well as the main activities on site. 2. Government Appointed Committee: composed of volunteer representatives from local NGOs, municipalities, ministries, and technical advisers. The GAC reports management progress to the MOE monthly and annually, and supervises implementation of yearly management plans by the MT. 3. Management Team: implements the management plans to which the staff members have been contracted. Ministry of Environment

Government Appointed Committee

Management Team Fig. 7: Management model under the Protected Areas Project Source: Bachir 2005, 22

47

Serious management concerns were reflected through the PAP project, and formed a baseline for the SISPAM project which aimed at strengthening the institutional structure and management of PAs in Lebanon (Bachir 2005). The SISPAM project was an MOE project funded by the EC-Life third countries programme and executed in collaboration with EcoDit Liban (MOE 2006b). Under this project, the MOE-GAC-MT model was reviewed to suggest improvements. The revised model included a more flattened structure with the introduction of an advisory board (fig. 8) to create an alleviation of technical and managerial responsibilities on the GAC (also called APAC), and strengthening of the management team with full-time skilled personnel to increase efficiency (Bachir 2005; Khater pers. comm.).

Ministry of Environment Protected Areas Department

Advisory Body National NGOs International Organizations Academic and Research institutions and experts Appointed Protected Area Committee

Management Team

Fig. 8: Triangular management model proposed under SISPAM Source: Bachir 2005, 25.

Although the proposed structure has tried to decentralize the management decisions and lean toward a more collaborative approach to managing PAs in Lebanon, the lack of a legal status for the APAC, and of secure funding to the MT, have made the management less effective than desired. On the other hand, the decision-making power remained with the MOE, which makes on-the ground management a governmentmanaged type of governance (refer to table 2).

48

In 2005, a workplan for the PAs was developed by the MOE-PAD to develop a systematic and sustainable plan for nature reserves in Lebanon. To achieve this goal, six targets were identified: strategic conservation planning for PAs; capacity-building for management of PAs; secure funding of PA management; legal and institutional framework for PA management; public awareness on PA and effective management of PA (UNDP 2005). The SISPAM project played a large role in this perspective through the preparation of a PA Action Plan tackling administrative, legal and financial issues as well as biodiversity conservation concerns, however its application was limited due to the political turmoil since 2006.

2.3.9 Protected area monitoring 2.3.9.1 Biological indicators As part of the PAP, Monitoring and Evaluation plans were developed by the LU for the three nature reserves chosen as demonstration parks, and two other PAs (Ammiq Wetland and Tyre Coast). The main objective of these evaluations was “to establish a baseline for monitoring key species, key habitats and progress on activities” (MOE and LU 2004a; MOE and LU 2004b). The PAP Monitoring and Evaluation program initiated the first activities in terms of surveys and inventories, development of indicators and capacitybuilding for technical support on the use of GIS for monitoring the state of biodiversity (UNDP 1995; MOE 1995; Sattout et al. 1998; Jaradi 2000). After the PAP, several initiatives were made to identify indicators and develop comprehensive monitoring plans for biodiversity conservation in Lebanon. These initiatives were part of many projects including LEDO, Agro-biodiversity and MedWetCoast Projects (UNDP 2005). Most of the work was done through scientific and academic institutions (i.e. NCSR, LU, AUB, University of Balamand) and environmental NGOs such as GL, SPNL, AFDC, YMCA, A Rocha, etc. (MOE 2002; UNDP 2005). A lot of emphasis has been put in working on biological indicators in Lebanon, however these efforts have been scattered between many institutions under different projects and for different groups of PAs.

49

2.3.9.2 Direct threats Despite the fact that “Impact assessment and minimizing adverse impacts” for forests (Article 14 of CBD) has been rated “High Priority” in the Third National Report to the CBD, this hasn’t been translated into effectively monitoring threat reduction by management teams in PAs (UNDP 2005). On Article 7c (Identification and Monitoring): “does your country have ongoing, systematic monitoring programmes on any of the following key threats to biodiversity?” (UNDP 2005, 115), the response was: “Lebanon does not have a systematic monitoring programme on key threats to biodiversity” (UNDP 2005, 115). The reply further clarified that the monitoring was mainly done by MTs within the nature reserves (UNDP 2005). Potential reasons cited in the document included the lack of (i) stakeholder involvement, (ii) national synergies between various institutions involved, (iii) effective management, and (iv) sustainable funding (UNDP 2005). Concerning national synergies, there was a repeated reference to the need for a national systematic monitoring system that would integrate all research and monitoring work done so far by various institutions or individuals. As for the funding, the main issue is that monitoring work ends with the end of the project fund and consequently doesn’t provide a secure long-term system (UNDP 2005). On the other hand, the minimal attention given to monitoring and controlling threats has been mentioned in the evaluation report done by Hagen and Gerard (2004) on the management of PAs in Lebanon. As part of the weaknesses of the management plans developed in PAP, the authors mentioned that:

Little or no identification of threats to the reserves and their biodiversity nor analysis of the root causes of these threats; […] No specifics on natural resource management (control of invasive species, fire management, restoration and recovery programs, buffer zone management, etc.); No definition of the specific needs for monitoring- Why monitoring is important, what should be monitored (Hagen and Gerard 2004, 8).

Although the SISPAM project developed a management monitoring tool to improve management effectiveness of Lebanese PAs (METT tool adapted version) (MOE

50

and EcoDit 2006a), political turmoil after the 2006 war retarded the governmental ratification of the MOE proposal to implement the SISPAM structure and monitoring tool. So far (three years later) the file is still on-hold, while new elections are being prepared for June 2009.

2.3.9.3 Management and monitoring issues The country still lacks the adoption of a standardized national designation and classification system that would create an agreement on classification (MOE 2006b). However, this is under final revision to be adopted legally soon (MOE 2006a; Khater pers.comm.). On the other hand, efforts have been made towards shifting the management structure from Government-Management to Co-Management/Collaborative management under SISPAM. However, the decision-making power is still very central to the MOE (El-Jisr pers. comm.) which slows down the management process and decreases efficiency. Moreover, management plans haven’t been updated since the PAP project which makes them old and inappropriate to the new situation. This is now being tackled by a new project launched in the summer of 2009 by the French Agency for Development (AFD-FFEM) and with the partnership of the MOE (Sattout pers. comm.). Under the AFD project “Support to Nature Reserves in Lebanon”, management plans for Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserves will be updated and new plans will be created for three other PAs (Hani pers.comm.; Sattout pers. comm.). On the other hand, the lack of sustainable funding remains the most cited problem to effective management and monitoring of nature reserves (Jaradi pers. comm.; El-Jisr pers. comm.; MOE 2002, 2005). The management of nature reserves is mainly funded by the MOF through the MOE with an annual budget not sufficing core costs of management (Hani pers. comm.). The other major sources of income are ecotourism and rural development projects for some reserves (Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve). However, all these sources are subject to uncertainty and instability, especially that conservation is not a national priority.

2.4 Conclusion The management of PAs in Lebanon is recent and still in an adjustment stage relative to the world experience. However, international problems of management are reflected

51

locally. Concerning monitoring and evaluation, plans in Lebanon have been focused so far on the use of biological indicator species and GIS (UNDP 1995; MOE 2002; UNDP 2005). The results have shown an improvement in fauna and flora and land coverage, however the monitoring pace has been slow and unsustainable due mostly to limited funds and project dependency (UNDP 2005). The need to have a cost-effective tool to monitor management effectiveness was identified and the gap was partially addressed by the MOE under the SISPAM project which developed an adapted version of METT for Lebanese PA monitoring. However, political turmoil after the 2006 war as well as the centralization of decision-making has retarded the ratification of the decision to implement the SISPAM structure and monitoring tool. The recognition of the need for an effective management monitoring tool combined with the rising threats to nature reserves from human activities justifies the relevance of assessing the potential of the TRA tool in the Lebanese context.

52

Chapter 3. METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction This chapter will provide details on how the research was conducted and will provide justifications on the methods used and steps taken in light of the research purpose. The research methodology was designed mainly around three parts: (1) data collection which aimed at understanding the context and on-ground situation; (2) meetings and interviews, to identify stakeholders involved in site management and prepare for the empirical research; and (3) administration of the tool and feedback from the participants.

3.2 Research design Qualitative and quantitative research types were combined to serve the scope of this research. Qualitative research consisted of informal meetings and interviews with relevant stakeholders, while the quantitative research was based on the administration of the TRA tool for the two selected nature reserve sites. The systematic approach used as a background throughout the research included the following steps: 1. Assess the need for a management monitoring tool in Lebanon. 2. Assess the existing information on threats and their monitoring. 3. Define the scope of the assessment. 4. Administer the TRA tool. 5. Discuss its results and future use

3.3 Qualitative research 3.3.1 Data collection The first stage of data collection included a broad review of the literature on conservation, international policy background, general and specific management issues. This was done through “trusted” online sources such as CBD and IUCN websites that contained recent detailed reports. Local and/or specialized online sources were consulted for more specific information on the Lebanese case (eg. MOE website). Relevant official or unofficial documents were also collected through visits to concerned institutions (libraries) or individuals (personal documents), and reviewed thoroughly. Local

53

documents included national reports and action plans, project proposals and reports, and expert project review reports, etc. The data obtained from the literature review and study results was partially complemented or validated through guided tours in the sites during which notes were taken on projects, activities, and management of the nature reserves studied as presented by the guide (refer to Appendix E for pictures) . During these visits some pictures were also taken on visible threats to biodiversity inside the reserve (Appendix E, photos 2 and 3). Another source of information included the attendance of a national event at the Shouf Cedar Nature Reserve on the National Day for PAs in Lebanon. This day included conferences and was focusing mainly on generation of income from nature reserves through ecotourism. Major stakeholders were present on that day and communicated their projects and plans.

3.3.2 Interviews Information collected online was complemented by face-to-face interviews with identified stakeholders in Lebanon. A preliminary letter was sent via email to the key stakeholders identified for interviews. The letter included: an introduction to the interviewer and the degree programme under which the research is being done; an overview of the topic of the research (with relevant published articles attached to the letter) and the general aims of the interview; and a request for an appointment. Interviews were carried out through qualitative open-ended questions that aimed at collecting information to identify more stakeholders and understand the situation onground. The discussion was generally tailored to the interviewee’s background, type of his/her involvement in PA management, responsibilities and experience. Accordingly, the interviews took the shape of informal meetings with open discussion and were not in structured formats. Interviews with people directly involved in management and/or monitoring included a discussion of their perceptions of threats and effectiveness of management and monitoring tools used so far on Lebanese PAs. This discussion aimed at identifying issues and gaps in the existing monitoring system, which helped assess the relevance of using the TRA method and incorporating it to the existing monitoring system.

54

In total, twelve interviews were completed with key people from academic institutions (LU), ministries (MOE and MOA), scientific centres (NCSR), private companies (EcoDit Liban consulting), local NGOs (Green Line), and international organizations (AFD). The selection of interviewees was mostly based on needs of the research and not on representation of the selected people towards the stakeholders in the field. Most of the people contacted were identified from literature review and by proxy. The number of people visited was sometimes limited by time, accessibility and availability, but mostly by research needs. In summary, local visits and interviews helped achieve the following steps: 

Understand the context and current PA management situation in Lebanon.



Assess the relevance of the TRA tool to the Lebanese context, and the scope of its potential use.



Identify key stakeholders that are most involved in on-site management as key participants for TRA administration (empirical work).



Introduce them to the TRA tool and plan for the empirical work.

3.4 Quantitative research 3.4.1 Scope of the study The implementation of the TRA tool needs the presence of an established management system as well as a minimal level of experience in managing the site, i.e. enough for participants to be able to assess the evolution of threats in those sites. The criteria for site selection included the following: compliance with the international definition of a PA, a relatively old operational management system, and a forest typology (as defined in the scope of the current research). Accordingly, the sites selected were among the nature reserves of Lebanon since they have the closest match with the PA international definition, and some have a relatively old management experience (since PAP 1996). All other PAs have formal support in either administrative, legal or financial forms but not all together (MOE 1998b; UNDP 2005). The criteria for selection downsized the sample to two sites: Horsh Ehden nature reserve and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve.

55

The participants to the TRA administration exercise were selected according to the criteria of: being closely involved in on-site management and monitoring, knowledge of the site, and experience level in managing the same site. As was revealed in the qualitative research, MT and some APAC members were closest to that definition.

3.4.2 Instruments 3.4.2.1 Methods and conceptual frameworks The modified version of the TRA tool (Anthony 2008) was chosen for this research. In parallel, the recent IUCN unified classification of direct threats (Salafsky et al. 2008) was used as a conceptual framework for classification of threats and participants’ understanding of direct threats versus indirect threats. Underlying assumptions to the TRA method include the following (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001; Tucker 2005; Anthony 2008): 

the destruction to biodiversity is induced by humans;



all direct threats at one site can be identified and their extent (area), intensity (degree of damage), and urgency (speed of damage) can be evaluated at any point in time;



changes in all threats can be estimated or measured at any time, whether quantitatively or qualitatively (Refer to section 2.2.6.3 for details on the TRA tool).

3.4.2.2 Justification for the Threat Reduction Assessment method The selection of the TRA tool was based on the need for a cost-effective monitoring tool accessible to the MTs and capable of providing a rapid and representative measure of progress in reaching PA management objectives. Many factors suggest that the TRA tool is appropriate to the Lebanese context including: 

The lack of funding and sustainability of monitoring systems used



The lack of a national monitoring scheme that would centralize results and share them within the PA network



The lack of an effective monitoring system focused on management effectiveness

56



The lack of effective monitoring of rising and irregular direct human threats to biodiversity and PAs in the area (due to political turmoil)



Administrative inefficiency and bureaucracy (eg. MOE to sign on decisions for nature reserve management). In this perspective, TRA can be introduced directly to field management teams as a tool for “internal monitoring” of progress towards reaching conservation objectives



The lack of local expertise and funds for training on complicated/complex monitoring tools and systems

3.4.3 Threat Reduction Assessment workshops 3.4.3.1 Workshop summary The most appropriate method of applying the TRA method so far has been through discussion groups (Mugisha and Jacobson 2004; Anthony 2008). For the current study, the workshop style was identified as best suited since the scope of the meeting was larger than TRA administration. Indeed, the workshop included an introductory presentation (Appendix A), a guided administration of the TRA tool, and a subsequent discussion and feedback debate. Accordingly, two workshops were planned and conducted with management teams and committee members of Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserves in their respective municipality areas. The two workshops involved 5 and 4 participants, respectively. A third workshop was carried out upon the spontaneous request of the participants in the Horsh Ehden nature reserve first workshop, to have a more updated evaluation of threat reduction. This workshop was in the form of a “focused group” administration of the TRA tool and discussion of results, without the introductory presentation. Five people attended this second session with Horsh Ehden NR.

3.4.3.2 Workshop objectives The objectives of the workshops conducted were to: 1. Provide a demonstration of the TRA tool application; 2. Train the participants on the use of the tool; 3. Provide the teams with the needed instruments to incorporate the TRA method into their management and monitoring plans, and to use it regularly;

57

4. Assess participants’ feedback (acceptance) on the TRA tool and its application; 5. Obtain a concrete quantitative result to interpret and use as appropriate for their management/action plans.

3.4.3.3 Workshop preparation Preliminary to the TRA workshops, the method was introduced to the PA managers (or their representative) during face-to-face meetings. Based on these meetings, agreement was made with PA managers to implement the TRA workshops in their own PA areas. This agreement was followed by an email that communicated the TRA manual (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001) and the IUCN unified classification of threats (Salafsky et al. 2008) to each management team as reference instruments. One week before the meetings took place, the following materials were sent (by email) to the managers and participants: 

The detailed program and schedule of the workshop



The list of equipment and materials needed



A summarized preparatory tool for the TRA application that includes: TRA definitions, Worksheet 1 for the TRA index calculation, a site map, Worksheet 2 for the TRA threat definitions and 100% reduction explanation, a summarized table of IUCN direct threat classification (see Appendix B for a template form).

The participants were asked to review these documents, decide on an appropriate timeline for their TRA evaluation (according to their management needs and objectives), brainstorm on important threats to their specific sites, and check their documents for supportive hard evidence of threat changes to reduce subjectivity of the evaluation. Preparations further included the creation of a Microsoft Excel® workbook that would facilitate data entry and the calculation of the TRA Index during the workshops. The workbook created includes four sheets for each workshop conducted: (1) attendance sheet; (2) TRA Worksheet 1 that requires only data entry of scores and evaluations (% threat reduced) as calculations are done automatically; (3) TRA Worksheet 2 that includes the definitions for identified threats and the 100 % reduction objectives for each

58

threat; and (4) the site map. It is created in an interactive manner and provides a practical easy-to-use tool. All results from the three NR workshops were incorporated into the same workbook. It was used to centralize all the data collected during the workshop, facilitate calculations, and share all the findings with the participants at the end. The completed workbook was given to each participant for their reference and future use (see Appendix C for the complete workbook including results).

3.4.3.4 Workshop implementation Each TRA workshop started with a 20 minute interactive presentation on the TRA method components, definitions and use within PA management systems. After the presentation, participants were guided using a “step-by-step” approach to the application of the TRA, as defined in the Margoluis and Salafsky (2001) guide. As each step was being completed, the data was collected and entered into the TRA worksheet templates in the developed Excel® workbook. Projection of the worksheets on a screen allowed for detailed follow-up on calculations from the audience. The TRA Index (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001) calculations can be summarized in the seven steps below: 1. Participants decided on the baseline information for the NR (area) and assessment period. The logistics of the meeting (date, participants) were also noted. 2. Participants were given time to agree on the important threats present at the beginning of the assessment period and provided a final list (in the range of 2 to 10) of identified threats for the TRA exercise. 3. Participants agreed on detailed definitions for each identified threat and for its 100% reduction target. 4. Participants were given time to agree on a relative score for each threat for the three parameters respectively: area, intensity and urgency. The scoring scale was defined from 1 to the maximum number of threats identified. Equal scoring was not accepted. 5. The (column) total for each “criteria ranking” score was calculated. A total ranking was also obtained based on the sum of all the parameter scores for

59

individual threats. (These calculations were automatically done by the Excel® sheet). 6. Participants assigned a mark out of 100 based on their evaluation (qualitative or quantitative) of the extent to which each threat has been reduced or increased (negative percentage) within the specified period. Failure to reach an agreement was solved by calculating an average of individual estimates. 7. The final steps of calculation were automatically done by the Excel® sheet. These included 2 main steps: the Raw scores calculations (multiplying the individual total ranking score for each threat by the corresponding percent threat reduction expressed in decimal form); and the TRA Index calculation as defined by Margoluis and Salafsky (2001):

TRA index= ∑ raw scores/ total rankings*100

The workshops were concluded by a discussion on the implications of the TRA results obtained and potential follow-up actions. An agreement was reached on finalizing results and sharing them with the participants in a report compiling the data and conclusions reached. Finally, feedback sheets were distributed at the end of the meetings to gather feedbacks of the participants on the TRA tool based on the workshops (Appendix D).

3.5 Conclusion In summary, the qualitative research helped achieve the first three components of the systematic approach for the research, while the workshops helped achieve the remaining two components.

60

Chapter 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Introduction In this chapter, the findings of the quantitative research will be presented and analyzed in light of the qualitative research findings for each of the nature reserves studied respectively. To understand the findings, it is first essential to understand the context in more details. Consequently, this chapter will introduce a general description of each site, followed by the TRA Index results and interpretation.

4.2 Description and value of selected sites 4.2.1 Horsh Ehden nature reserve Horsh Ehden nature reserve is a small PA (10km2) representing a mountainous ecosystem of north Mount Lebanon chain, 100 km from the capital Beirut (UNDP 1995). The reserve is divided into a Core Zone (CZ) (central forest), and a Buffer Zone (BZ) extending around the CZ with a 500 meter diameter. Horsh Ehden forest is the only mixed forest of cedar and fir trees. It contains the largest stands of the native Cedar of Lebanon Cedrus libani, and conifers such as the high juniper Juniperus excelsa as well as the last remaining forest community of the endemic wild apple tree Malus trilobata (UNDP 2005; INMA 2005b). The reserve is home to 500 species of flowering plants including 57 highly endemic species and other threatened species (UNDP 2005). Despite its small area, the Horsh Ehden is the most diversified natural reserve of the country offering habitat to 60% of the breeding avifauna in Lebanon (MOE and LU 2004a) The fauna is particularly rich in migratory bird species: 156 bird species have been recorded in the reserve accounting for 40% of the birds in Lebanon (MOE and LU 2004a; INMA 2005b). These birds include the endangered eagles Aquila heliaca and Hieraaetus fasciatus. More than 27 mammals have been sighted inside the NR including 10 rare or threatened species. Mammals include the common field mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus), striped hyena (Hyaena hyaena syriaca), and wildcat (Felis silvestris tristrami). Around 300 species of fungi add to this rich biodiversity of Horsh Ehden creating a unique and valuable area for conservation.

61

The reserve is currently managed by a contracted MT under the supervision of the APAC and the MOE. The team of 7 members includes: 1 team manager, 1 assistant, 2 guides and 3 rangers. Horsh Ehden NR is mainly managed for conservation through management intervention, which makes it a Category IV PA as per IUCN definitions (MOE and EcoDit 2006b). The first management structure had been established under PAP in 1996 by contracting the MT as part of a local NGO (Friends of Horsh Ehden). At that time, communication and coordination problems reported in the first evaluation report of PAP led to a low efficiency of management (Abu Izzeddin and Jahshan 1997).

4.2.2 Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve Al-Shouf Cedar (ASC) is the largest NR in Lebanon (165 km2) stretching from Dahr El Baidar in the north to Niha Mountain near Jezzine in the south, and is characterized by a series of peaks extending north to south parallel to the sea. The western slope of the reserve faces the Shouf region and the Mediterranean coast, while the eastern slope faces the southern Bekaa and overlooks the Ammiq wetland (RAMSAR site). ASC represents a mountainous ecosystem (1200-1900m) of the Central Mount Lebanon chain which includes 4 forests: Ain Zhalta-Bmahray, Barouk, Maasser Al-Shouf, and Niha (UNDP 2005; INMA 2005a). The Niha Mountain forest is the southern-most limit of the Cedar of Lebanon Cedrus libani, and has the only remaining significant natural reproduction of this species. The reserve’s cedar forests account for a quarter of the remaining cedar forests of Lebanon, with some more than 2000 years old (SCR 2009). Besides Cedar forests, the reserve presents a variety of Oak and Juniper mixed forests (SCR 2009). The flora is represented by a wide variety of trees, shrubs, grasses and typical endemic herbs (eg. Geranium libani, Acantholium libanoticum). Because of its large size, the ASC reserve is one of the last remaining natural areas in Lebanon that hosts large mammals such as the wolf (Canis lupus pallipes) a globally threatened species, and the Lebanese jungle cat (Felis chaus) (INMA 2005a). Moreover, the reserve hosts a significant number of birds who use it as a resting area during annual migrations. ACS reserve is now part of a much larger MAB Reserve designated by UNESCO in 2005 (SCR 2009). The reserve is also divided into a Core Zone (CZ) (central forest), and a Buffer Zone (BZ) extending around the CZ (500 meter diameter). The whole area is currently

62

managed by 13 members of the MT, with the supervision of the APAC and under the umbrella of the MOE. The management of the reserve started under PAP by the local NGO: Al-Shouf Cedar Society. The current structure (MOE-APAC-MT) is conceptually separated from the ACS however the NGO still constitutes the backbone institution that is supporting the reserve’s management activities. The reserve receives substantial financial support form the political leader of the area, also President of the ACS NGO (Hani pers.comm.; Ghanem pers.comm.). This support has been a financial cushion to sustain the management activities of this large reserve in the absence of a sufficient and stable fund from the MOE (Hani pers.comm.). The ASC PA is mainly managed for ecosystem protection and recreation and hosts a high number of visitors for ecotourism each year (Hani pers.comm.). This makes it a Category II type of PA according to the IUCN definitions (MOE and EcoDit 2006b).

4.3 Threat Reduction Assessment Index The TRA tool was introduced to both teams as a tool for their own use as they have been given the choice of deciding the ends of its use according to their own site-specific management objectives. Accordingly, each MT chose a different time-line for evaluation depending on their specific projects. The results of the 3 workshops are presented and analyzed below according to the NR studied.

4.3.1 Horsh Ehden nature reserve results Two independent TRA Index calculations were done for Horsh Ehden within two weeks interval. The first workshop evaluated the period 1997-2002, during which the first management project (PAP) was implemented. Based on the team’s request, a second TRA workshop was done with the following changes: 

An updated evaluation period (2002-2009), in order to compare the results between the two periods and analyze the evolution of threat management.



A separated TRA Index calculation between the CZ and BZ. After the first workshop, the MT of Horsh Ehden realized that the two zones could have different types and/or importance of threats (criteria ranking) and should be separated in order to have a clearer spatial evaluation of threat impact. They also

63

suggested that the calculation of two separated scores would allow for better planning. The results of the two evaluations are presented below separately as TRA Index 1 for the first evaluation and TRA Index 2 for the second evaluation.

4.3.1.1 Horsh Ehden TRA Index 1 (1997-2002) A summary of TRA Index calculations for Horsh Ehden first evaluation period (spring 1997- spring 2002) is provided in Table 5. The participants identified eight important threats relative to 1997. The index shows a positive but minimal reduction of 24% in threats at the end of the evaluation period. Individual assessments of reductions in threats show extreme differences. While “overgrazing (goats)”, “garbage and solid waste” and “logging and wood harvesting” by the community have almost been eliminated, other threats such as “off-road vehicles” and “excess energy (noise and light)” pollution have significantly worsened (-83% and -75%, respectively). A remarkable appearance of a new threat, i.e. the introduction of a “problematic native species (wild boars)” to the reserve from the local community has been noted (table 5). Although wild boars are native species, the participants considered it highly problematic to the reserve since it wasn’t existent in that area and has been causing major changes in the natural ecosystem. Moderate results include 43% reduction in “hunting (leisure)”, and a small rise (-30%) in “residential and commercial development” due to construction of houses in private lands of the BZ and of a wood house for commercial use inside the CZ. These results suggest that closer monitoring is needed to check if there are any trends in these threats showing moderate changes. On the other hand, the TRA tool revealed almost complete success during PAP to reduce important threats of “overgrazing (goats)” and “wood harvesting’ mostly through effective law enforcement and fining system (Abu Izzeddin et al. 2000a).

64

Table 5: Threat Reduction Assessment Index for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve (spring 1997- spring 2002)

* Refer to Appendix C for further details and definitions

4.3.1.2 Horsh Ehden TRA Index 2 (2002-2009) The second evaluation was done for Horsh Ehden NR to follow-up on the evolution of threats during the second period following PAP until the current date (spring 2002-spring 2009). During that period the reserve had received funds for several management and/or reforestation projects (MOE 2005). However, the MT decided to do an overall evaluation of that period encompassing individual projects. As mentioned above, the team also decided that it would be more relevant to divide the NR into two zones CZ (Table 6) and BZ (Table 7). Table 6: Threat Reduction Assessment Index 2 for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve Core Zone (spring 2002spring 2009)

*Refer to Appendix C for further details and definitions

65

Table 7: Threat Reduction Assessment Index 2 for Horsh Ehden Nature Reserve Buffer Zone (spring 2002spring 2009)

*Refer to Appendix C for further details and definitions

Both zones showed a negative TRA Index, which reflects a major incapacity in managing threats in the whole NR area during that period with worse results in the BZ (118%) compared to the CZ (-78%). In both zones, new threats have appeared including “fire” caused by humans and “tourism” with the increase in visitors (school children, tourist operator tours etc.).

Other threats have increased significantly (more than

doubled) such as “off-road vehicles”, “problematic native species (wild boars)” numbers and impact, and “excess energy (noise and light)”. The BZ witnessed a higher increase in construction as “residential and commercial development” has doubled during 2002-2009 while a slower trend was noted in the CZ (-30%). A tremendous increase in “off-road vehicles” use by the public was also noted in the BZ as the team estimated that it got at least four times higher than at the beginning of the 2002 period. On the other hand, the threat from tourism has increased three times more in the CZ (-300%) than in the BZ (100%). Another interesting finding is that the “overgrazing (goats)” in CZ only, and “hunting” in both CZ and BZ were not reduced nor increased for 7 years (0% change), which could suggest that no specific action nor project has focused on reducing these threats in their areas of importance. On the other hand, the results show that effective control of goat grazing has been achieved in the CZ. However, “overgrazing (goats)” was almost eliminated in the first period of evaluation. Consequently, the 98% threat reduction observed in the second evaluation is relative to a very low baseline level of

66

grazing. During the workshop it was suggested not to include the “overgrazing” threat in the assessment of the CZ, however the participants judged it as important to assess. As compared to the first assessment for Horsh Ehden NR, the second showed the disappearance of some threats that were important previously, namely “garbage and solid waste” and “logging and wood harvesting”. This reflects a positive outcome of conservation management in terms of a positive law enforcement for reducing hunting, and an improved solid waste management from the municipality (the reserve area was used for open dumping of domestic solid waste before it became a reserve).

4.3.1.3 Interpretation and implications Discussions at the end of the two workshops revealed major problems in legislation enforcement in specific areas (eg. wild boars) where threats have increased or appeared. Although the introduction of species is banned by law, the access of animals to the reserve cannot be controlled since no appropriate measures at the boundaries have been taken (eg. fence). Moreover, no policy or legislation exists to forbid or reduce the level of light directed in big projectors to the wild areas of the reserve during the night, nor to the noise pollution created by the restaurants in the BZ of the reserve. The road that has been constructed for military purposes around 1970 is now a major source of nuisance for the wilderness inside the area. The gravel road has been left open to the public without any control on its access. This has resulted in a frequent use by locals who come with fourwheel-drive vehicles and speed on the road, or sit on the side for picnics, etc. In the winter, the same road is used by snow vehicles that have been reported to create a significant amount of noise, oil pollution and solid waste on the area. With time and improved economic conditions in the country, more people have gained possessions of 4wheel vehicles and the road has become a major source of entertainment to the public (Saade pers.comm.). This is a major source of habitat destruction and pollution to the NR from vehicle fumes, fuel, noise and solid waste. The grazing of goats has almost been eliminated from the CZ, however some animals still have access to the reserve because of the absence of a physical barrier, a problem that can be easily solved. As for hunting, the team estimated that the same level of hunting is being done since 1997 especially in the BZ, due to very discrete hunters

67

who enter the reserve very early morning (4 a.m.), and the lack of effective law enforcement and support from local authorities (security forces). Comparison between the two assessment periods reveals some interesting shifts in priority threats as reflected in the “Total Ranking” scores. As seen in table 5, in 1997 the most important threats for the area were in order of priority: “overgrazing (goats)”, “hunting (leisure)”, “off-road vehicles”. In 2002, the priority threats have shifted to “residential and commercial development” in both the BZ and CZ (refer to Appendix E1, photos 3 and 4); with a second priority to “hunting” in the BZ and “wild boars” in the CZ; and a third priority to the “off-road vehicles”. The increasing threat in “residential and commercial development” (refer to Appendix E1, photos 3 and 4) reflects a major underlying/indirect threat, which is the lack of clear demarcation of boundaries (Abu Izzeddin pers.comm.) of the Nature Reserve (and all other NRs in Lebanon) on ground. The NR boundaries are defined by surrounding villages, but the absence of clear demarcation creates confusion in terms of private lands being part of the NR area and consequent threats that might come from it (construction etc.). Moreover, the results obtained suggest that the management effectiveness of the Horsh Ehden MT in reducing threats has been declining with time despite projects applied. This might reflect either the implementation of projects that are not serving the real conservation needs of the area; real managerial problems or both. The designation of Horsh Ehden as a NR has attracted more visitors and entertaining activities (off-road) to the area. Unfortunately, this was not accompanied by appropriate enforcement of laws and policies to preserve the reserve for the consequent harm. The TRA Index results clearly reflect this problem, i.e. the worsening and appearance of new threats are much more evident with time. If this negative trend continues with this rate of threat increase, the creation of a NR without appropriate management and legislative control could cause more damage than benefit to conservation objectives. Consequently, urgent action is needed from the Management of Horsh Ehden NR to mitigate and control threats. Based on the results and identified (underlying) issues, the MT discussed actions and objectives that should be set within new management plans. Priority objectives that need to be addressed to reverse the current alarming trend of threat increase include the following:

68

1. To control noise and night pollution from restaurants through internal regulations, and with the support of local security forces/municipality. 2. To restrict the access of the road to the MT use only, through the enforcement of the rule restricting its use as part of the NR. 3. To conduct a scientific research on the current and long-term impact of wild boars’ reproduction and effect on the natural ecosystem of the reserve. Write and implement an action plan for their control and for mitigating their impacts. 4. To enhance law enforcement on urban planning in order to control illegal constructions in private land inside the NR (BZ mainly). 5. To control the number and activities of visitors in the site especially in the CZ in order to mitigate the negative impacts that “uncontrolled” visits are causing.

In order to achieve these targets, the team recognized the essential need for external support (which is currently weak), including local and national political will and support, financial support (eg. for scientific research), stable and sufficient incomes, and institutional support.

4.3.2 Al-Shouf Cedar nature reserve results 4.3.2.1 Al-Chouf Cedar TRA Index The MT of Al-Shouf NR decided to apply the TRA tool on a completely different timeline (summer 2006 to spring 2009). Their choice of the start date was based on the need to evaluate the improvements made after the chaos characteristic of the July 2006 war with Israel. Indeed, the team is interested in this period especially that they have recently adopted a new project (GTZ project) that aims at the “Restoration of income generation affected by the war to support conservation in Al-Shouf Cedar Nature and Biosphere Reserve (Hani pers.comm.). As part of this project, the TRA Index can be tied to one component of the GTZ project relating to “Project management and dissemination of results: monitor and evaluate the project” (Hani pers.comm.). The results of the TRA Index for ASC reserve are presented in table 8.

69

Table 8: Threat Reduction Assessment Index for Al-Shouf Cedar Nature Reserve (summer 2006- spring 2009)

*Refer to Appendix C for further details and definitions

The TRA Index shows a positive 51% reduction in threats since the summer of 2006. This is also reflected in consistent positive reductions for all identified threats except for “tourism” activities that have slightly increased (-10%). The total ranking of threats shows a major priority for “fire” (human-induced) that were intensified during and after the war period, followed by “grazing (goats)” and “roads”. The results in the case of Al-Shouf are specific to a special baseline situation where management activities were negatively impacted by political circumstances. Consequently, there was a minimal control over threats at the baseline, especially for “grazing (goats)” that became open and uncontrolled through the area during war period. To control grazing activities, the management has developed a sustainable system of rotation to sustain livelihoods of local farmers without harming the conservation efforts, under the “sustainable grazing project”. This rotation system was effectively implemented after the war which is reflected by the reduction in grazing by 70% (refer to Appendix E2, photo 5). As for “fire”, it is mainly caused by intentional burning of solid waste in the opendump of West-Bekaa area and indirectly by some picnic activities. Fires in the NR area are being recorded by the MT by occurrence and extent of coverage on a regular basis except during war time. The team estimated a 50% reduction in “fire” occurrence and impact as a threat on the area. To combat fires, an internal project is in place with the support of the local political leader and ACS President (SCR 2009). This project is integrated with other projects in order to reduce the risk of fires, including: “sustainable

70

grazing project” “Pruning and cleaning project” for three oak forests. These projects are all contributing to control fires in the NR. The “road” threat refers to the main road connecting Al-Shouf and West Bekaa areas and used for the transport of commercial products. The road is causing major pollution from (vehicle fumes, noise), and accidents with passing wild animals. Unfortunately, there are no alternatives for this road and it cannot be closed, however the team suggested that a certain level of control should be applied. On the other hand, internal reports have recorded that the tourism activities increased as expected after war. Records of visitor numbers have shown an increase from 14,072 visitors in 2007 to 21,794 in 2008. However, the threat from visitors was estimated to have increased minimally (-10%) during that time despite a high rate of tourism. Since ASC NR is mainly managed for conservation and recreation, special attention has been given to the organization of eco-tourism in the area (trained guides, trails, guesthouses etc.), which could be the reason for minimal increase in the threat. Under the new GTZ project, a new eco-tourism strategy is being drafted for the Al-Shouf Biosphere Reserve to improve income generation from tourism and decrease threats caused by the high number of tourists (noise, habitat destruction, waste). Moreover, “logging and wood harvesting”, an old practice used for house heating; and the “gathering of terrestrial plant” (edible plants) for subsistence have been controlled by the management through law enforcement, “Pruning and cleaning” projects and another project that encourages and supports local people to create their own gardens of edible plants (usually harvested). This might explain the effective reductions in threats from logging 80% and plant harvesting by 60%.

4.3.2.2 Interpretation and implications Al-Shouf Cedar NR reserve has many projects already in place to control the threats that they identified from 2006. Consequently, the TRA method reflects the impact of these projects re-applied or begun after the war. The TRA Index exercise has helped the MT to quantify the level of improvements made until 2009 and to draft the following priorities: 1. Request proper management of the solid waste open-dump in West-Bekaa area from the government, with a complete ban of burning.

71

2. Focus efforts again on the application of the “sustainable grazing plan” to effectively control the grazing activities in the reserve. 3. Install signs at the main road for careful driving to reduce accidents with animals, and forbid waste dumping and picnics on the sides of the road. 4. Enforce internal laws more strictly concerning hunting.

As part of internal management, the Al-Shouf team records threats on a standardized form called “violation form”. This document can be of support to the qualitative estimates of threat reduction given during TRA workshops. On the other hand, the “violation form” can be updated to use the standardized lexicon of direct threats according to IUCN definitions (Salafsky et al. 2008). The participants noted that the major problem for their effective management is the lack of sustainable funding for the core costs since the MOE budget is covering only 20% of the required funds to manage the reserve (Hani pers.comm.). After the war, the financial support from the MOE was cancelled for a year and retarded for a second year (Hani pers.comm.). Other problems noted were the lack of legal status for the APAC, the dependency on international project funds, and the lack of boundary demarcation (Abu Izzeddin pers.comm.). Although the impact is still less felt in ASC NR compared to Horsh Ehden, because of its much larger surface area, it might cause major problems in the future especially with the presence of villages in the larger biosphere reserve (Abu Izzeddin pers.comm.).

4.3.3 Threat Reduction Assessment feedback The level of acceptance of the TRA Index tool in the Lebanese PA sites studied was assessed through a feedback questionnaire administered at the end of the first two workshops in each reserve (Appendix D). The short questionnaire contained open- as well as closed-ended questions. More than 50% of total participants responded. All respondents replied “Yes” for questions about “Finding the tool beneficial” and “Helpful to be used as part of regular monitoring” of their management effectiveness. Other responses on open-ended questions of the feedback are presented in table 9.

72

Table 9: Participant feedback on the Threat Reduction Assessment tool

Respondent

Positive aspects of TRA tool •

1

2

• • • • •

3

• • • •

4 •

• 5

Analyze and compare results Set the priorities for the action plan Very rapid tool Doesn't need expertise Easy to be used and filled Good reference to switch from words to numbers and charts Good tool to evaluate before and after (activities, projects, etc.) Focus on threats, their importance and the ways of finding solutions It's applicable Defines threats in priority Provides a brief assessment

Quantitative aspect of measuring threats and tracking their evolution

How is it helpful to use the TRA as a regular monitoring tool?

Negative aspects of TRA

• Help in controlling the monitoring steps concerning threats, their causes and ways to handle them

• Uncertain percentages

• To evaluate our projects and activities in a single way

• None

• For reserve new planning • For focusing on threats • For comparison of the results between more assessments related to time or activity

• Percentages related to temporary or unexpected threats (eg. 2006 war)

• For monitoring and better management • To prohibit threats in strategic ways • Regular system of TRA is urgently needed. • Updating the TRA system should be a top priority to the MT and APAC of the PA. • TRA Index will help draft a management and action plan relevant to real challenges facing the PA. • Undoubtly would help in drafting a practical action plan that would be used in pursuing policies conducive to the best strategic outlook for protection and sustainability

• Inaccuracy due to subjectivity and limits on threat numbers validation

The result of this feedback will be analyzed in the context of the research problem in chapter 5. 4.4 Conclusion The results obtained with the TRA method in both sites are reflective of their individual situations and show an interesting contrast between two sites where the same national strategies and policies apply but different levels of local political and institutional support have been impacting the overall effectiveness of management. The absence of local

73

political support and of a stable institutional support for Horsh Ehden, have been major underlying causes of failure to manage threats. In contrast, the Al-Shouf NR area was able to overcome national issues with the presence of an underlying stable institutional and political support. In both cases, the TRA Index was a useful tool to prioritize actions as part of management plans, and to monitor trends through project implementation and conservation success.

74

Chapter 5. CONCLUSION 5.1 Introduction This chapter will provide a discussion of the overall research findings in relation to the specified research question: Is the TRA tool well-suited for monitoring management effectiveness of forest protected areas in Lebanon, and try to provide an answer based on the components of the research question (see Chapter 1). In this chapter the limitations of the study will be presented and discussed and recommendations for the future use of the tool will be given. The chapter will be concluded by an assessment of the success of the current research in reaching its aim and objectives as defined in Chapter 1.

5.2 Resolution of the research problem The resolution of the research question will be discussed below based on the several components that defined it in Chapter 1.

5.2.1 Threat Reduction Assessment tool acceptance As shown in the feedback given by participants, the TRA tool was well accepted by the participants as they found it practical, easy to fill and use (especially on the Excel® worksheets). Moreover, the participants showed a high level of interest and motivation in applying and interpreting the results after the end of the calculations. The participants found specific interest in the tool because it provides a quantitative result that makes it easier to monitor changes over time. The perceived usefulness of the TRA tool can be summarized as follows: planning actions, drafting and/or updating management plans, and monitoring project effectiveness in a standardized way (table 9).

5.2.2 Threat Reduction Assessment tool adaptability to the local context The current study suggested that the (modified) TRA tool is an appropriate tool for the Lebanese forest PA sites that were studied and is potentially useful for the remaining PAs with a stable management system in Lebanon. The research findings suggested that the TRA tool is appropriate to the Lebanese context because: 1. It didn’t require any financial resources to be implemented.

75

2. It didn’t require more than 3 hours and will require much less in the subsequent sessions. 3. It directly involved stakeholders working on the site (or most familiar with it). 4. It was easy to understand and interpret by all people present without the need for specialized expertise.

Moreover, the modified version (Anthony 2008) of TRA method includes negative scoring which can incorporate the emergence and/or worsening of threats. This was particularly relevant to the Lebanese context characterized by instability (political, institutional, legislative etc.), that directly impacts threats and management effectiveness. This is reflected in the high amount of negative scores obtained and a highly unusual negative TRA Index for Horsh Ehden’s second assessment period. Adapting the tool to the Lebanese context requires an adaptation to each site’s needs and project objectives. The lack of a systematic standardized monitoring plan applied on the PA network in Lebanon, combined with the presence of different projects on different PAs, suggests that the TRA tool should be introduced to the PA management as an internal tool (independent of project requirements) for monitoring threat reduction and progress in management outcomes. This would ensure the long-term and regular use of the monitoring tool, independent of funding bodies requirements (and short funding), helping the management teams to reach their conservation objectives. Moreover, if used appropriately and included into a national strategy, the TRA tool could help “Lebanon […] move towards a monitoring strategy that is sustainable further than the duration of a project fund” (MOE 2005, 117), identified as an important need in the third national report for the CBD.

5.2.3 Threat Reduction Assessment tool potential for integration into management plans The TRA tool can be easily integrated into the management plans of Horsh Ehden and Al-Shouf Cedar NRs especially that they are being updated at present within the AFD project. Both management teams expressed their intention to use the TRA tool as part of a regular monitoring scheme for their management effectiveness, especially that some

76

believe it was “urgently” needed (table 9). Their opinions are consistent with previous research findings that identified the need for a similar type of monitoring tool in Lebanon (Hagen and Gerard 2004).

5.2.4 Positive impact of Threat Reduction Assessment tool use on management practice The TRA method has shown a strong potential to improve management effectiveness of Lebanese Forest PAs. This study showed its relevance for forest reserves. The next recommended steps would be to incorporate it into the remaining forest reserves management plans (eg. Tannourine Forest Reserve), and expand its use to marine and coastal reserves (Palm Islands, Tyre coast etc.). The best arrangement would be to start applying it in parallel for many reserves under a PA network with a similar strategy and conservation objectives. This would allow for comparison of achievements of the same strategy in different contexts and will help making adjustments under adaptive management. In this study, the potential for comparing TRA Index between the two reserves was eliminated since the choice was given to the participants to decide on the evaluation periods, and consequently different time frames were chosen for each reserve. Moreover, the MTs explicitly stated that it was not a priority for them to make comparisons. However, the new AFD project could be a start for integrating this tool and using it to monitor management effectiveness under one project. Ultimately, the major role for adopting this tool would be for the MOE which has the authority to require its use on all NRs in the country. In this perspective, it is important to mention again that the TRA tool has better be used along with other comprehensive monitoring tools that will be adopted nationally (i.e. METT adapted version). Over the long-term, using the TRA tool within an established network of PAs can help Lebanon follow-up on its conservation strategy effectiveness, and comply with Article 7c of the CBD (refer to chapter 2, section 2.3.9.2). On the other hand, improved monitoring of PAs can only serve the aim of PA management improvement if the underlying problems are addressed. According to the present findings, the following priorities exist: law enforcement of internal regulations on hunting and grazing, demarcation of boundaries of the NRs, provision of stable and

77

sustainable funding for research and management, political will to conserve and provide support to local management.

5.3 Study limitations The present study has some limitations as is the case with most research. First, a time limitation that restricted the field work and prevented meetings with some people that are directly involved in PA management in Lebanon. However, the impact of this on the results is minimal since most data was also corroborated with that in literature and validated by the interviews. Another limitation could be the level of attendance and participation in the TRA workshops. Given the limited time, and difficult access to the areas, it was problematic to find an appropriate time that would increase attendance. However, the relatively small number of participants facilitated the success of the meeting. As for the TRA tool itself, as mentioned by its creators (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001) and others who have used it (Persha and Rodgers 2002; Mugisha and Jacobson 2004; Anthony 2008), it is not free from bias. Indeed, as was also mentioned by the participants, subjectivity or inaccuracy in measurements could be the biggest pitfall of the results. However, some sites (Al-Shouf nature reserve) are regularly documenting threats, which decreases subjectivity. On the other hand, participants in each workshop gave remarkably similar answers. This agreement could suggest a relatively accurate evaluation, especially that the final TRA Index was estimated as representative enough of their PA management situation. Although a certain problem that might occur in TRA evaluations is usually a voluntary exaggeration of “% Threat Reduction” by attendees to show that they have succeeded in their management (Margoluis and Salafsky 2001), this was not the case in the Lebanese assessments as can be deduced from high negative scores. The management teams rather accepted the tool as an internal tool that aims at helping them evaluate and improve their work, rather than bring a “judgment” on their work. This positive and constructive attitude reduced the risk of errors. Another source of error could be due to the retrospective evaluation in the first workshop made by Horsh Ehden since they chose a very old time frame and had to rely on their memory. However,

78

as they have mentioned, not many projects were implemented after 2002 and progress is so slow that it wasn’t difficult to think retrospectively. Moreover, the subjective choice of “important threats” at the beginning of the workshop could suggest that some important threats could be missing. However, the data was triangulated by the qualitative research done through literature and local interviews. The important threats were validated.

5.4 Recommendations For better implementation of the TRA tool in Lebanon in the near future, the following recommendations are given based on the present research experience: 

Improve workshop attendance and include APAC members (but limiting participants to max. 8-10).



Regular documentation of “direct threat” occurrence and impacts to provide clear evidence for threat reduction estimates and reduce subjectivity.



Use the IUCN unified classification of direct threats for a standardized lexicon and reference tool.



Divide CZ and BZ where direct threats are estimated to be different in terms of presence, criteria (area, intensity, and urgency), reduction, or management strategies. This recommendation is consistent with the UNDP-GEF experience in East-African Forest PAs (Persha and Rodgers 2002).



Run the TRA Index at shorter time intervals than 3 years (as used in this research) to provide a clearer and more effective tool for monitoring progress of a management project. The appropriate time is that needed for a project to showing tangible results on ground (Persha and Rodgers 2002).



Continue the use of the Excel® workbook that already contains the first results for future assessments (data entry and TRA Index calculations), and the Introductory Presentation as a guide for definitions and TRA step-by-step application.

79

5.5 Research contribution Theoretical: From the theoretical perspective, this study provides an original contribution to research as it is the first that uses the IUCN Unified Classification of Threats published in 2008 as a background lexicon for the TRA method. As suggested by Anthony (2008), this lexicon has been used carefully not to lose important details that characterize the specificity of the direct threat in its site context. This was done by including in brackets next to identified threats important information on the source or type of threat, and explaining the details in the definitions on Worksheet 2 (Appendix C). The use of this common lexicon will provide a common communication platform for the future use of the tool in Lebanon, and can help integrate the information into a database for future reference (Anthony 2008). Moreover, the study constitutes the first research that combines from the start the new IUCN lexicon and the modified version of the TRA with an unlimited scoring system (>100% or 2000 years)

115

Photo 8: Cedrus Libani (Cedar of Lebanon)

Photo 9: Mixed forest of Cedar and Pine.

116