Project brief identifiers

Annex J: Project Categorisation Sheet

Focal Area Categories
Biodiversity			Climate Change				International Waters		Ozone Depletion
Conservation 			Energy conservation (prod./distribution)				Transboundary Analysis		Monitoring:
in situ	ex situ		ESCO’s	Efficient Designs			Strat. Action Plan Development		ODS phase out (Production)
Sustainable Use			Solar:				Freshwater Basin		ODS Phase Out (Consumption)
Benefit-sharing			Biomass:				Marine Ecosystem 		Other:
Agrobiodiversity 			Wind:				Wetland Habitat 
Trust fund 			Hydro:				Ship-based
Ecotourism 			Geothermal:				Toxic Contaminants 
Biosafety			Fuel cells:				GPA Demonstration
Policy & Legislation 			Methane recovery:				Fisheries Protection 
Buffer Zone Dev. 			Other:				Global Support:
b. Categories of General Interest
Investment 			Technical Assistance			Targeted Research 			Land Degrad. 
Technology Transf.			Small Islands 			Info/Awareness			Private Sector
c. Community & NGO Participation
Involvement type		project design			Implementation			info/awareness		consultation
		CDF Natura Community Associations Ecociencias WWF Universities			CDF Community Associations			CDF Community Associations		CEDENMA Natura WWF

1 The Galapagos was named one of the first World Heritage Sites in 1979 and a Biosphere Reserve in 1984

2 It is included in the WWF Global 200 programme and is listed as a top priority in Dinerstein. see reference 1.

All further bibliographic references in the main body of the text are numbered in square brackets [ ].

3 Per capita income is US$ 6,000 (in main urban areas) versus US$ 1,229; the educational index 64.8% versus 58.5%; the health 67.6% versus 57.7%, and overall poverty values 18.8% versus 58.4% respectively.

4 The SLG earmarks GNP entrance fees as follows; 40% for the GNPS-GNP; 5% for GNPS - GMR; 5% for the Ecuadorian Navy for surveillance of the GMR; 5% for the quarantine system-SICGAL; 10% for INGALA; 20% for municipalities; 10% for the Provincial Council; 5% for the National Protected Areas Network.

5 CDF is named in the SLG as member of the INGALA Council and its Technical and Planning Committee, member of the GMR Participatory Management Group, educational advisor and advisor for the Inter-institutional Management Authority. Articles 55 and 56 respectively, specify CDF responsibilities to work with government authorities on annual programmes for eradication of invasive species in agricultural areas and advise on the regulations and procedures for "total control" of introduced species.

6 Based on on-going monitoring and research, it is estimated that about 250 new plants have arrived since 1970.

7 For example, Feral Goat populations, lacking local predators, have multiplied, transforming large areas of previously densely vegetated lands into scrub and grasslands. Pigs prey on tortoise and sea turtle eggs, and the introduced black rat, which also preys on bird eggs and young tortoises, has displaced endemic rice rats. Cats prey on lava lizards, young marine and land iguanas and on birds. Introduced plants also have widespread effects, rapidly spreading and physically displacing native and endemic flora. Localised invasions of cottony cushion scale, avian pox, biting black flies and little red fire ants indicate the increasing pressure from invertebrates and micro-organisms. Annex E provides further data on the impact of the various introduced species on native species/ habitats.

8 This resulted in the loss of habitat for many endemic Galapagos species, including the giant tortoise.

9 SICGAL’s currently has a 4-member committee formed by local organisations (GNPS, CDF, MAG, INGALA).

10 Examples of research include the analysis and monitoring of the population status of reptiles, including tortoises, rice rats, Galapagos petrel’s and mangrove finches, and studies of the distribution and ecology of introduced plants.

11 For example, CDF research found that sex of young Galapagos tortoises is determined by the temperature at which it incubated as an egg. Ex situ breeding programmes used this information to increase the number of females produced and repatriated these, thus speeding up recovery in endangered populations of these island species that are characterized by low rates of population growth.

12 Past eradication and control initiatives in the Galapagos have generated important lessons, which have guided project design. These lessons include:- 1] the importance of establishing an intensive monitoring program following eradication to ensure that no small pockets of survivors remain; 2] the need to effectively co-ordinate the activities of the GNPS and the CDRS during the planning phase, the execution phase and the post eradication monitoring phase of the project; 3] the value of training staff in advance in planned eradication methodologies and in the use of advanced technologies such as radio- telemetry and global positioning systems; 4] the importance of securing funding for the entire eradication campaign ex ante; and; 5] the value of acquiring equipment prior to start up.

13 These differ from targeted research in output 2 as they will focus on known aggressive invasives for which methods exist but require testing, at field scales and under different conditions, to plan and cost widespread application. The research, in contrast, will be of a more experimental nature and on a different scale. Moreover, it will focus on measuring the threat of potential invasives, and developing measures for those known aggressive invasives that currently have no appropriate control methods. These actions will abet long-term conservation.

14 These initiatives will be implemented in consultation with management experts in other small island environments (i.e. New Zealand and Mauritius), who have been engaged in invasive species management work.

15 Given the site’s remoteness, the GNPS is hard pressed to maintain intensive controls. Interventions will combine non-intensive control activities of the pig population during the nesting season, with the relocation of eggs into fenced in areas. Results will be compared to nesting success rates in areas with no pig control, and successful measures will be replicated.

16 Black rat populations will be monitored to detect any increase following removal of cats and if necessary appropriate control measures will be applied so as to limit impacts. Similarly, monitoring on the islets closest to Santiago will measure any re-colonisation by black rats and timely control measures will be applied as necessary.

17 Aristolochia odoratissima (Dutchman's pipe), Citharexylum gentryi, Dalechampia scandens (Choking vine), Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth), Rubus adenotrichos (Blackberry), Rubus niveus (Isabela population only).

18 The invasive species target and the population locality were carefully selected using criteria that included:- the potential ecological degradation, ecological importance of locality, possibility of natural recovery post-eradication, proven eradication methods, population size of invasive species and institutional jurisdiction (see Annex G).

19 Northern Isabela is isolated from Southern Isabela by a narrow, barren, volcanic isthmus that will impede the passage of goats. A monitoring system will be established to ensure no isolated strays succeed in crossing this barrier. Contols will gradually reduce populations in southern Isabela leading to their subsequent eradication.

20 Project proponents have discussed the campaign with local stakeholders. The following representatives of the Isabela population have been contacted as part of this on-going outreach effort (mayor, port captain, primary and secondary school directors, political representative, hunters, INGALA representative, GNPS/ CDRS field staff).

21 The need to ensure a majority non-Government interest in Environmental Funds was a specific recommendation of the 1997 GEF Evaluation of Trust Funds (see Paragraph #27 of the Summary Report].

22 Project proponents have approached private individuals interested in preservation of the Galapagos for support.

23 Friends of Galapagos (FOG) organisations have 10,000 members and are independent but closely allied to CDF. The organisations are based in USA, UK and Switzerland and provide approximately 0.2 million annually to CDF.

24 The draft agreement will be shared with the GEF Secretariat for comment prior to finalisation.

25 The government is currently seeking to improve the competitiveness of a range of sectors in Galapagos Province.

26 Drawing on the results of the survey in output 2 and planned baseline monitoring of socio-economic parameters.

27 The INGALA Council currently consists of representatives of the Ministries of environment, finance, defence, trade, and industry, & fisheries & tourism, and also of municipal and provincial government authorities, of sectoral associations such as tourism, artisanal fisheries and agriculture & livestock producers, and of the CEDENMA.

28 Amongst other things, the decision invites Parties to the Convention to address the issue of alien species for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to develop country ­driven projects to address the problem. The decision requests the financial mechanism to provide adequate and timely support for those projects.

29 Advances made in the GISP and the related GEF medium project will be channelled through the TAG. This will also facilitate the flow of lessons learnt through the project to other bio-invasion control programmes world- wide.

30 Sunk costs are included in relevant sections to indicate previous efforts but are not included in the cost of the baseline

31 See annex G for details.

32 See annex H for details.

 As defined in the Glossary of the Special Law for Galapagos – prevention, control, eradication and mitigation

33 This includes equipment, human resources, logistic costs, communications and publishing of lessons learnt

34 Starting with Aristolochia odoratissima (Dutchman’s pipe), Bryophyllum sp. (mother of millions), Urochloa mutica (Para grass) Citharexylum gentryi (timber tree), Dalechampia scandens, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) Leucaena leucocephala (leucaena), Mimosa pigra (giant sensitive plant), Pueraria phaseoloides (tropical kudzu), Rubus adenotrichos (blackberry) and Rubus niveus (blackberry, in Isabela Island)

35 An estimated 60,000 tourists visit the Galapagos each year. Entrance fees are set in United States Dollars under the SLG and vary from US$ 100 for foreigners, through US$ 50 for Andean community members and US$ 6 for nationals. Based on information on tourist composition, a set value of US$80 was used to calculate annual incomes. This results in annual revenues of US$ 4.8 million.

36 As the quarantine services are expanded, SLG provisions will be complemented by cost recovery mechanisms to be developed including inspection and quarantine fees. New fee schedules would be developed for these services under the proposed project.

37 See reference 7 Annex K

38 Post project budgets for CDF and GNPS will be slightly higher than present as both institutions will incur higher costs to maintain the additional levels of operations stimulated through the project. This will necessitate larger than current budgetary appropriations for invasive species focused control, eradication, mitigation, research, planning, communications and education activities.

39 The three main support organisations are based in the USA, UK and Switzerland.

40 This agreement will be shared with the GEF Secretariat for comment prior to finalisation.

[^1] Dinerstein, E. et al, 1995 “A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the Caribbean

[^2] Amador, Eduardo, Michael Bliemsrieder, Linda Cayot, Miguel Cifuentes, Eliecer Cruz, Felipe Cruz, and José Rodríguez. 1996. Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Galápagos. Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos and INEFAN, Quito.

[^3] Tye, A. 1999. Personal communication. Head of plants and invertebrates conservation, Charles Darwin Research Station.

[^4] Mauchamp, A. 1997. Threats from alien plant species in the Galápagos Islands. Conservation Biology 11 (1): 260-263

[^5] Bensted-Smith, R. 1998. The war against aliens in Galapagos. World Conservation, Special Issue “Invaders from Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN

[^6] Whelan, P.M. 1995. Una propuesta para el establecimiento de un sistema de inspección y cuarentena para las islas Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin

[^7] Bensted-Smith, E. Cruz, F. Valverde. 1999. The strategy for conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in Galapagos. Entomologie (Buletin de l’institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique). 68(supp.) 65-70

[^9] Anon. 1997. Plan for the protection of northern Isabela island, Galapagos National Park, Ecuador, from ecosystem damage caused by feral ungulates. Charles Darwin Research Station, Galapagos National Park Service
=============================================================

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anon. 1985. Presión de los gatos en colonias de aves marinas. Carta Informativa 15: 4

Calles, A. y E. Muñoz. 1992. Salvation for the Hawaiian petrel: Successful rat control programmes save rare birds and reptiles. Public Health (Bayer AG, Germany) 10: 6-11.

Chambers, A. 1991. Quarantine and Exports Operations Manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Tonga-Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

Chambers, A. 1991. Competency standards for quarantine inspectors. AQIS.

Cruz, F. y J. B. Cruz. 1987. Control of black rats (Rattus rattus) and its effect on nesting dark-rumped petrels in the Galápagos Islands. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 1 (2): 3-13

Cruz, Justine B. y Felipe Cruz. 1996. Conservation of the dark-rumped petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia of the Galápagos Islands, 1982-1991. Bird Conservation International 6: 23-32.

Fowler de Neira, L. E. y J. H. Roe. 1984. Emergence success of tortoise nests and the effects of feral burros on nest success on volcán Alcedo, Galápagos. Copeia 1984 (3): 702-707.

Gibbs, James P., Howard L. Snell, and Charlotte E. Causton. 1999. Effective monitoring for adaptive wildlife management: Lessons from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Wildlife Management 63 (4): 1055-1065.

Hamann, O. 1993. On vegetation recovery, goats and giant tortoises on Pinta Island, Galápagos, Ecuador. Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 138-151.

Hamann, O. 1995. Las Islas Galápagos - Amenazas y protección de la flora de las Galápagos. En G. Zizka y K. Klemmer, eds., Flora y Fauna de las Islas Galápagos: Origen, Investigación, Amenazas y Protección, pp. 111-121, Palmengarten der Stadt, Frankfurt am Main.

Hamann, Ole. 1997. Conservation of endangered plants of the Galápagos: integrating conservation actions. In D. H. Touchell and K. W. Dixon, eds., Conservation into the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 4th International Botanic Gardens Conservation Congress, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 137-150, Kings Park Botanic Garden and Botanic Gardens Conservation International, West Perth.

Jäger, H., Tye, A. & Gerlach, A. In press. Impact of the introduced tree Cinchona pubescens on the native flora of Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Ecology of Invasive Plants, Sardinia, October 1999.

Jones, S. 1997. Informe de datos de la encuesta del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.

Konecny, M. J. 1987. Home range and activity patterns of feral house cats in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Oikos 50 (1): 17-23.

Lehmberg, Katja. 1997. Estimating the value of the Galapagos National Park using the Travel Cost Method and the Contingent Valuation. M.Sc. thesis, University of London (Wye College), 31 pp.

MacDonald, I. A. W., L. Ortiz, J. E. Lawesson y J. B. Nowak. 1988. The invasion of highlands in Galápagos by the red quinine tree Cinchona succirubra. Environmental Conservation 15 (3): 215-220.

Moll, Eugene J. 1998. A further report on the distribution of introduced plants on Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos. University of Queensland School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Occasional Paper 5 (1): 1-82.

Morillo, Germán and Linda J. Cayot. 1996. Estado poblacional de la tortuga gigante de Galápagos de la isla Pinzón. In Jaime E. Péfaur, ed., Herpetología Neotropical: Actas del II Congreso Latinoamericano de Herpetología, pp. 203-216.

Muñoz, E. 1993. Control experimental de rata negra en la zona de anidación de los galápagos, isla Pinzón. En G. Davis-Merlen, ed., 1988-1989 Informe Anual de la ECChD, pp. 140-142, Fundación Charles Darwin, Quito.

Ospina, P. 1998. Eradication and quarantine: Two ways to save the islands. World Conservation, Special Issue “Invaders from Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN.

Robalino, G. 1997. Manual técnico de normas y procedimientos de inspección, certificación y control cuarentenario para las islas Galápagos. SESA.

Rosenberg, D. K. 1990. The impact of introduced herbivores on the Galápagos rail (Laterallus spilonotus). Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 32: 169-178.

Schofield, E. K. 1989. Effects of introduced plants and animals on island vegetation: Examples from the Galápagos Archipelago, Ecuador. Conservation Biology 3 (3): 227-238.

Soria, Mónica. 1998. Evaluación de la regeneración natural del matazarno Piscidia carthagenensis (Leguminosae) en la isla Santa Cruz, Galápagos, y un aporte educativo a la conservación de la especie. Tesis de Licenciatura, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. 214 pp.

Tye, A. 1998. Alien plants and invertebrates: Turning the tide?. World Conservation, Special Issue “Invaders from Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN.

Whelan, P.M. 1994. Un diagnostico para el establecimiento de un sistema de inspección y cuarentena para las islas Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.

Zapata, C. E. y Causton, C.E. 1998. Plan de Inicio del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.

Zapata, C.E. y Causton, C.E. 1999. Análisis de las necesidades del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.