Project brief identifiers
|
|  Yüklə 0.84 Mb.
|
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION26 The proposed alternative course of action aims at addressing the programmatic gaps identified within the baseline scenario. Its definition and development draws from an extensive and highly participatory process. This includes first and foremost, the unprecedented, participatory development and approval of the SLG, which identified invasive species as the principal threat to biological diversity. GEF PDF A and B resources were used to identify and build a consensus on the actions needed to implement a bio-invasion control programme, and co-ordinate the work of a variety of institutions in project development. Co-funding, particularly for the design of the pilot projects, was provided through GNP, CDF and UNDP. Two international workshops, convened in 1997 and 1999 respectively, provided a means of canvassing expert opinion and gathering inputs for project design. The project thus fully reflects the state- of- the- art in the arena of alien species management. 27 The overall goal of the GEF Alternative is to better conserve the extraordinary global biodiversity value of the Galapagos through an integrated approach to ecosystem conservation that addresses the single most important threat to terrestrial biodiversity[7]. This will be achieved through a one-time investment in an array of capacity-building activities geared to develop Ecuador’s ability to address the permanent threat of bio-invasion in a sustainable manner, while providing immediate relief to endangered components of biodiversity. Management would be engineered within the context of the SLG by adopting an approach that includes prevention, control, eradication and mitigation elements. Co-financing for the GEF Alternative has been leveraged from the United Nations Foundation (UNF), UNDP/ UNFPA, IDB, GoE, and CDF through a range of donors, the private sector and other NGOs. This is in addition to the significant baseline investments that have already made an important contribution towards protecting global conservation values (these are described in the incremental cost annex). The project will have six outputs, summarised below: Output 1: A co-ordinated inspection and quarantine system for Galapagos is in place with the full participation of local institutions and with defined procedures and detection techniques. 28 Activities would strengthen and operationalise the Galapagos Inspection and Quarantine System (SICGAL). GEF and IDB resources will be used to improve and extend quarantine and inspection infrastructure (i.e. control points, fumigation centres) and thus increase the efficiency of alien species detection. GEF resources will develop specific operations manuals for quarantine and inspection procedures for the Galapagos system operators and train them in relevant detection methods. Materials will be up-dated periodically as findings from the research, monitoring and pilot activities become available, thereby gradually focusing actions on species that present the highest risk to biodiversity. GEF resources will also be used to develop an optimal internal transportation protocol reducing dispersal rates within the archipelago, and to fund periodic workshops with the different institutions involved in SICGAL, ensuring the uniform adoption of inspection procedures and circulation of new procedures arising from adaptive management mechanisms [8]. UNF, GoE and GEF resources will be used to systematically monitor areas with a high risk of introduction, such as seaports, airports and agricultural zones, complementing general baseline biological monitoring. New introductions detected through this and the community watchdog-system to be set-up under output 5, will be eradicated by an emergency rapid response team to be established and trained with GEF and UNF resources. A cost-recovery mechanism for quarantine and inspection services will be designed as a direct complement to provisions under the SLG for covering the recurrent costs of SICGAL. Output 2: Adaptive management mechanisms established to develop and up-date a scientifically sound, well-programmed and cost-effective bio-invasion control programme. 29 An array of adaptive management tools will be put in place to ensure that efforts to control the permanent threat of bio-invasion will be cost-effective, ecologically appropriate and continually up-dated as new information and techniques become available. This will include prescriptive and predictive models for establishing priorities and selecting the most appropriate and cost-effective interventions from a range of bio-invasion management options. These models, to be developed with GEF resources, will be based on the evaluation and correlation of a wide range of information including the contextualisation of existing methods and experiences from around the world, biological monitoring reports and the results from the demonstration component. They will also draw on a well-structured experimental research programme to be developed with GEF resources to cover critical gaps in the scientific knowledge required to address specific IS management challenges. These challenges include:- (i) Developing control and eradication methods for those species that are not aggressive invasives elsewhere; for those that are aggressive elsewhere but for which methods do not exist or are not available at the scales required; and for those species for which methods exist elsewhere but that potentially more effective alternatives could exist in the Galapagos; (ii) Evaluating the effect of recently introduced invasive species on a range of endemic species and hence determine risks and priorities; (iii) Confirming causal relationship in complex ecological settings that do not occur elsewhere; (iv) Determining how new alien species are introduced and hence develop better detection and prevention measures to reduce the number of establishments; and (v) Developing restoration methods for habitats following successful control of invasives. More details of these challenges and examples of species to be targeted in the research are provided in Annex G.
Output 3: A series of eradication, control and mitigation pilot projects are implemented to solve the key invasive species management dilemmas, strengthen the operational and technical capacity of parties responsible for invasive species control, and eliminate critical populations. 31. A series of pilot projects will test the effectiveness of different combinations of management options, providing an essential body of information for overcoming invasive species management challenges and contributing towards the design and execution of cost-effective, and technically feasible, long-term management intervention throughout the Galapagos archipelago13. These projects will also raise the technical and operational capacities of key institutions responsible for invasive species control, further contributing to institutional learning and strengthening nascent control efforts. They will adopt robust replicate and control procedures that accurately measure the response of the endemic target organism or system, and have been selected to protect the most endangered species and habitats and solve the most pressing bio-invasion management dilemmas. The various projects are briefly summarised below14. Further details on this component are provided in Annex G. 32. One group of pilot projects, to be funded largely by the UNF, will focus on control and mitigation management challenges. Three will target control of introduced black rats under different conditions and locations:- (i) in Isabela island, where black rats threaten the endangered mangrove finches, impacts will be measured and optimum levels of control determined to increase reproductive success in these birds; (ii) in Santa Cruz, Floreana and San Cristobal islands, where they threaten the Galapagos petrel, the optimum intensity of control measures will be identified; (iii) in Pinzon island, where it is thought to be responsible for low tortoise recruitment rates, studies will determine its relative impact compared to the Galapagos hawk, and subsequently required control and mitigation measures will be applied. Two further pilot projects in this group will focus on mitigating the impact of pigs on the recruitment rates of endemic green sea turtles and giant tortoise species in Southern Isabela. These will test combinations of control and mitigation mechanisms to determine the most cost-efficient means of protecting these species15. UNF and GEF resources will fund a pilot project that combines elements of control with eradication by reducing high-density stands of quinine in Santa Cruz to prevent it spreading to other islands and determining the feasibility of full eradication. 33. A second group of pilot projects funded through UNF will focus on overcoming the challenges of eradicating small-scale animal invasive populations and will include:- (i) the eradication of a newly established population of smooth-billed anis on Fernandina island to develop and test a rapid response team using advanced technology (GPS, GIS); (ii) the eradication of the only three populations of rock doves in Galapagos to remove this threat completely and to demonstrate how to address invasive species intimately associated with human activity and settlements; (iii) the eradication of feral cats16 on Baltra island using control measures used in other parts of the world and up-grading them to plan and implement larger-scale cat eradication programmes on other islands (iv) the eradication of black rats from islets surrounding Santiago island to test eradication methods for small islands and provide an invasive free habitat for re-introduction of the endangered Santiago rice rat to maintain populations until a full ecological restoration of Santiago is complete; (v) eradication of the red fire ant from Marchena island, where it was introduced several years ago, to replicate and test lessons-learned from a previous fire ant eradication campaign in much smaller areas on Santa Fe island; (vi) eradication of the small invasive black fly populations in San Cristobal Island to protect freshwater endemic species and develop new technologies/ methods for dealing with invertebrates. 34. GEF and CDF resources will fund a set of pilot projects that focus on archipelago-wide eradication of plant species with limited distributions to remove this threat and to measure the long-term cost-effectiveness of eradication whilst populations are still low. Selected plant species with low populations at present, but known to be serious invader species in other parts of the world, and which pose a risk for the Galapagos, have been selected using criteria that include:- population size, known invasive tendencies, availability of eradication technique, importance to human populations. They will also be used for a set of projects that focus on eradication of small populations of plant species with wide distribution, removing the threat progressively by preventing their spread in well-defined geographic areas (individual islands) and uncovering costs for total eradication of larger populations. Up to 5 populations of plants17 known to be aggressive invaders in Galapagos, but that on several islands have small eradicable populations, were selected including Rubus niveus on Isabela, which threatens to become a serious problem, as it has on other islands within the archipelago. A further 25 species will be selected for eradication by year two of the project (following further inventory work). 35. Finally, one large, resource-intense, pilot project, funded by the GEF, GoE and CDF, will focus on the problem of eradicating mega-populations. This will remove the most critical invasive species threat in the archipelago and establish the technical, operational and managerial capacity to plan and implement campaigns on this scale[9]. It will eradicate the 100,000 strong feral goat (Capra hircus) population on northern Isabela Island and, together with local communities, design the subsequent eradication of the much smaller population on the southern half of the island18. This island represents more than half the archipelago’s total land mass and has more endemic species than any other island, with 66% of the endemic vertebrates and 40% of the endemic vascular plants represented. Browse pressure of the goats in the northern half is seriously effecting these plants and the herbivores that depend on them for food or for shade and water, including the giant Galapagos tortoises that constitute approximately half of the total remaining population of this unique species. Evaluations by international experts in invasive control and eradication indicate that eradication in northern Isabela is feasible if sufficient levels of resources are guaranteed. Re-introduction control would be cost-effective because of the natural buffer provided by the Perry Isthmus, which is a crucial component of the strategy to prevent movements of goats from southern Isabela northwards19. In addition, native plant seeds are still sufficiently abundant to naturally recover, post-eradication. 36. Formally backed by leading feral ungulate control experts, and under scrutiny from international conservation organisations interested in the eradication of mega-populations of invasive species, the Isabela Project will be the first of its kind and will provide invaluable lessons for goat eradication on large islands throughout the world. It will require the adaptation of methodologies proven in other parts of the world (i.e. the Judas goat technique, helicopter assisted hunting), to environmental conditions and scales in the Galapagos. It will also require extensive training, the use of advanced technologies such as radio-telemetry, global positioning and geographic information systems and the establishment of a professional hunting dog-training programme to support field operations. The project will include a campaign to impart awareness of the need to perform the eradication, targeted at communities20, decision-makers in government /civil society, and animal rights groups. Output 4: An expanded and efficiently operating financial mechanism is operationalised permitting the permanent funding of invasive species control activities in the Galapagos. 30 The project would create a permanent financial mechanism to provide sustained financing to manage environmental threats to the Galapagos archipelago. An endowment fund (hereinafter referred to as the fund) will be created, the proceeds of which will be used exclusively to address conservation management priorities identified in the Management Plan for the Galapagos in a manner consistent with specific provisions of the Special Law of the Galapagos. In the medium term, the activities of the fund will be geared primarily to addressing the threat posed by invasive species. Accordingly, the fund will provide incremental financing to cover the bio-invasion control campaigns of the GNPS and CDF (as per their designated responsibilities under the Special Law). However, the fund will be designed so as to allow its activities to be expanded, as necessary, to address new conservation pressures, taking all precautions to avoid deleveraging baseline commitments. 31 A number of options have been considered for the design of the fund during the process of project preparation, and in full consultation with the Government of Ecuador. Important considerations include the need to 1] ensure the security of assets; 2] ensure that the fund functions beyond direct Government control21; and 3] capitalize on the existence of the Darwin Scientific Foundation (DSF), and the administrative and operational structures created to operate it. In view of these, it was agreed that the DSF be restructured to serve as Trustee for the fund on behalf of the Government of Ecuador. GEF contributions towards the corpus of the fund would be remitted under the Terms of a Tri-partite Agreement to be negotiated between UNDP, the GoE and DSF, and which will spell out the responsibilities of the Trustee for managing and administering the fund. This arrangement will reduce the risk of attachment of the assets in the event of a default on Government debt. To secure the assets against domestic currency fluctuation, inflation and other financial turbulence, they will be held and invested offshore. [The arrangement will also allow the fund to draw on offshore investment expertise and will, moreover, enhance the attractiveness of the investment opportunity the fund provides to private and public donors.] A dedicated sub-account will be created to hold the assets, and internationally credible asset managers and auditors will be retained. 32 To ensure that the DSF discharges its functions as Trustee effectively and independently, and to increase national ownership of the Fund, a majority non-governmental governing Board will be formed. This will include representatives from the Government of Ecuador (GNPS & MMA) and the CDF, an Ecuadorian NGO, the private sector, and the donor community (to be designated by UNDP). Finally, a Funds Operations Unit, to be staffed by an Executive Director, Accountant, Monitoring Officer and Personal Assistant would be established within the offices of the CDF in Ecuador. As the Fund will finance agreed management priorities specified in the Galapagos Management Plan and is not an open-access window, the administrative responsibilities of the Operations Unit will be smaller than would otherwise be necessary. The Operations Unit will be responsible for maintaining local accounts, managing disbursements, supervising procurement, monitoring interventions, including the use of funds, and preparing reports for the Board and for donors. 33 The proposed arrangements accommodate a large number of the recommendations arising from the GEF study on trust funds (1997) as detailed in Annex H. These include 1] conservation actions are addressable with the income from the fund; 2] there are good prospects for meeting the proposed endowment targets22; 3] a supporting legal framework is in place (Ecuador already has laws that allow charitable organisations to be exempt from tax); 4] internationally credible legal and financial institutions are located in Ecuador, and can provide an independent and quality service; 5] several international NGOs and UNDP are willing and able to serve in a mentor capacity, as the mechanism is operationalised; 6] administrative costs will be less that 20% of the net income from assets in the sub-account; and 7] absorptive capacity exists for conservation activities to be funded through the mechanism. 34 The GEF would provide resources (totalling US$ 890,000) 1] to prepare the legal instruments for the fund, set up the governance and administrative structures, create the Operations Unit, and develop operational manuals and monitoring and evaluation procedures; 2] to cover a portion of the in-country administrative costs of Operations Unit in years 1-5; and 3] for fund raising operations. Due precautions will be taken against frustration of the objectives of the fund, through the design of legal instruments, and by providing for the revocability of the fund to donors, including the GEF. The legal instruments would be structured to guard against allocation of the proceeds of the fund towards baseline activities, which would be partly financed through the return of tourist gate takings. 35 The project would seek to capitalise the fund with assets of US$ 15 million. GEF resources would be used to design and implement a two-step fund-raising campaign to reach this target, using the network provided by the Friends of the Galapagos organisations23. The GEF would provide US$ 5 million in financial capital, to be matched by US$ 2 for every dollar appropriated. These funds are needed as seed capital to encourage other donors to contribute. GEF inputs would be contingent on realisation of the following benchmarks by the end of year 4: 1] establishment of new bylaws and governance structures for the DSF; 2] creation of the Operations Unit; 3] generation of matching funds from non-GEF sources; and 4 formalisation of the tri-partite agreement between UNDP, GoE and DSF regarding the duties and functions of the trustee24. These benchmarks would be subject to independent authentication prior to the release of GEF resources into the fund. Fund-raising would be undertaken through a three-year campaign contracted out by the CDF. A US$ 1 million challenge grant has already been secured from UNF. This is being matched by US$ 1 million from private sources. The remaining non-GEF capital inputs will be secured from wealthy private donors; tour operators; and the CDF’s network of partner foundations, including the Frankfurt Zoological Society. Output 5: An awareness and participation programme for bio-invasion control is developed. 44. Existing capabilities for communication and public participation campaigns will be strengthened with GEF, UNF and WWF funds to specifically include bio-invasion concerns and to raise the awareness of residents and tourists on the danger this presents and on actions that they can take to reduce it. IDB and GEF resources would be used to strengthen the capacity of GNPS and CDF for sustained campaigns in the medium term and to produce didactic materials for public participation in spearheading prevention efforts [10]. A permanent discussion forum will be established with GEF and UNF funds, for interest groups whose lack of co-operation may have negative implications for bio-invasion control. This will include farmers, food retailers, the tourism industry, and cattle ranchers. The forum, modelled on the existing Participatory Management Board of the Galapagos Marine Reserve, will be the means through which interest groups will have the opportunity to communicate in a regulated environment in an effort to clarify perspectives, exchange information, review policy initiatives and resolve differences. Forum meetings would be co-ordinated by a facilitator, to be recruited by the GNPS. GEF funds will help establish community based watchdog groups that will support archipelago-wide monitoring efforts for the detection of newly introduced species, or sudden population explosions of previously introduced invasive species. They will also fund periodic socio-economic surveys to provide continual feedback on the attitude of resident towards bio-invasion control and the effectiveness of the various communication campaigns. Output 6: A bio-invasion overlay developed for regional planning with a set of guidelines and instruments that ensure that sector development fully addresses invasive species control. 45. A bio-invasion management overlay will be developed with funding from the GEF and the IDB, AECI, UNDP, UNFPA and private enterprises to provide a complement of policy guidelines, principles and procedures for those sectors contributing to the establishment and propagation of invasive species. These include the infrastructure, agriculture, transport, and tourism sectors, and settlement planning, and waste management, with a specific focus on the agricultural and tourist sectors. Legal backing for the reviews is provided by the SLG. The guidelines would form the basis upon which INGALA, as per article 6 of the SLG, would establish development policies. In accordance with new national planning practices, these guidelines will be developed through a participatory process involving all relevant stakeholders. This will be followed by a technical phase in which hired specialists, working in conjunction with INGALA, will develop policy alternatives that will be fine-tuned following public consultations and the public forum created under Output 5. 46. The ecological, economic and social viability of different agricultural management and development policies will be evaluated to define the most appropriate strategy for bio-invasion control. A set of incentives and penalties to facilitate the implementation of the most feasible strategy will be designed including, inter alia,:- strengthened technical assistance schemes; the revision of importation duties to enable locally produced goods to compete with imported goods; tariff reductions for biodiversity friendly technologies; fiscal incentives for purchasing inputs through certified importers; land-purchasing schemes and increased land taxes for idle land. Once identified, priority elements of the overlay strategy will be implemented, with funding from other financiers. 47. The tourism sector will also receive additional attention through a UNDP and IDB funded evaluation of different scenarios (locally-based, cruise, sport-oriented) to determine their effects on bio-invasion control and to ensure that actions taken to improve competitiveness25 will not increase the risk of bio-invasion. A code of ethics, including reliance on locally produced food and conservation friendly products, will be developed for tourism operators and support services mobilised, drawing on private sector resources and through a self-funded green certification scheme. 48. The bio-invasion management overlay will be highly cost-effective as it will re-orient sectoral expenditure estimated at approximately US$ 25 million over the life of the project and considerably more in the long-term. This effectiveness will be increased further by IDB funded activities to raise INGALA’s overall capacity for planning through the provision of specific training and up-dated equipment. GEF resources will facilitate implementation of the bio-invasion overlay by:- (i) designing a bio-invasion risk-assessment procedure to be applied during the appraisal of development projects; (ii) developing a system of incentives, and penalty mechanisms26; and (iii) strengthening the existing Galapagos Unit in the Ministry of the Environment to better ensure that new Galapagos related projects, often negotiated in Quito, follow these policy guidelines. The unit will have the added responsibility of co-ordinating associated donor sponsored interventions. 49. End of Project Situation: At project closure, Ecuador would have the ability and mechanisms to efficiently address the permanent threat of bio-invasion to the Galapagos, that currently endangers this vital world heritage site. A body of knowledge would be available with which to plan, and deliver, cost-effective and feasible control interventions across the archipelago and to leverage non-GEF investments for this task in the future. A set of adaptive management mechanisms would be available to ensure that interventions are continually improved as new methods and technologies become available to managers, and existing funding mechanisms would be strengthened to sustain the bio-invasive management programmes of CDF and the GNPS. Regional and sectoral development would be oriented to more fully comply with bio-invasion control and local communities would be more aware of the bio-invasive threat and actions they can take to abate it. 50. Furthermore, substantial immediate benefits to endangered biodiversity will have accrued. Populations of 66% of the endemic vertebrates, including half the remaining giant tortoises, and 40% of the endemic vascular plants of Galapagos, would be freed from the negative effects of feral goats –considered by scientists to cause and sustain greater damage to natural habitats than any other invasive species. The feral goat population of the entire archipelago would be reduced by over 50% and conditions established for total eradication of this species over ensuing years. Archipelago wide eradication of thirty plants would have been achieved. Eradication of a further five animal and five plant invasive species from five islands would have relieved pressure on endemic species in these localities and populations of four invasive species would be controlled on an additional seven islands. Finally, critical lessons will have been learnt that could be replicated not only within the Galapagos but also throughout the world, thus helping to curb the threat of bio-invasion is small island habitats. 51. Project Beneficiaries: The global community would be the foremost beneficiary of project activities, which will secure the extraordinary existence and recreational values of the Galapagos Islands by building Ecuador´s capacity to control the most urgent threat to the Islands’ ecological integrity. By designing and piloting systems for invasive species control, the project will also benefit Ecuador’s national and local-level protected area management and research institutions, communities, NGOs, schools and residents with a stake in conservation objectives. By overcoming barriers to invasive species control, the project will, over the medium to longer-term, serve a wider range of national beneficiaries that directly or indirectly derive livelihoods from the tourism industry. No tangible short-term benefits to these stakeholders are expected, as tourism rests largely on the survival of a few charismatic species and populations—not currently under severe threat from invasive species. However, as the threat from invasive species grows, there is a danger of ecological knock-on effects, as well as a risk that the perception of the Islands as a pristine destination in key tourist markets will suffer. Both outcomes would have negative long-term effects on this industry. 52. Stakeholder Participation: The proposed project was developed following extensive stakeholder consultations with representatives of national and local governmental institutions, NGOs and sectoral associations during the PDF A and B phases. The project addresses concerns identified as priorities by local residents and formalised in the SLG, thus facilitating broad-based support during implementation. The unusually high level of community involvement in decision-making processes that characterises the Galapagos will favour broad-based participation. This is important, as resolution of the invasive species problem will require especially high levels of stakeholder participation. Participatory approaches are reflected in the strategy proposed for the project, which includes participatory planning processes, consensus-building mechanisms and the strict co-ordination of institutions funding activities and projects in Galapagos through the active involvement of the MA. The INGALA will also play a critical role in facilitating this co-ordination as it integrates a wide range of sectors in its governing council27. Stakeholder participation in the arena of bio-invasion management will increase over time as community members are empowered by a deeper understanding of the dangers of invasive species and a broader knowledge of specific ways they can collaborate in mitigating the threat. This will be further reinforced by a set of incentives and appropriate penalties for inducing best practices and compliance with new management controls. 53. Eligibility under the CBD: The Project is fully consistent with the CBD and will contribute to Article 8 on conservation in situ, specifically item 8(h), which calls on countries to “...prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species”. As part of the strategy to address invasive species, the project will include the development of guidelines to better manage protected areas, restore degraded ecosystems and regulate the processes that have a significant effect on biological diversity, thus addressing items (b), (f) and (i) of Article 8 respectively. The project will also include monitoring, research, public awareness and participation activities and as such is compliant with articles 7(b),10 (d),13 (a),12(b). Furthermore, it closely follows CoP/CBD guidance decision IV/1c on alien species28. By focusing on the endemic biological diversity of geographically and evolutionary isolated ecosystems, adopting a precautionary and ecosystem approach, informing the public on the dangers posed by alien species and undertaking public education and awareness campaigns, the project also pursues the recommendations of Decision SBTTA/4/L.2 that provides guiding principles for preventing impacts from alien species. 54. Eligibility for GEF Financing and Operational Programme fit: The project focuses on the abatement of the major threat to biodiversity and evolutionary processes in a globally unique eco-region. It will cover the incremental costs of strengthening the long-standing commitment of Ecuador to biodiversity conservation in Galapagos, designing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for controlling invasive species at a time when biodiversity loss is still low and habitat degradation reversible. It is consistent with national conservation priorities, will achieve the participation of a range of stakeholders and provide valuable lessons that can be replicated in other parts of the world. It will adopt an integrated ecosystem approach for the protection of small-island biodiversity. While this includes coastal, marine and terrestrial components, the GEF intervention will focus on the terrestrial habitats as these are under most imminent threat and retain the greatest portion of the archipelago’s biological diversity. As terrestrial habitats of the Galapagos are dominantly xeric shrubland, it will fall under OP #1, Arid, Semi-arid and Desert Ecosystems and address the cross-cutting issue of land-degradation by eradicating and controlling species that damage fragile habitats. 55. This initiative also complies with the UNDP programme of support to Ecuador falling under the strategic area that includes the development of policies and strategies to address ecosystem degradation and loss of biodiversity. Indeed, UNDP has previously funded a range of activities related to conservation in the Galapagos including support to the Permanent Commission for the Galapagos during the definition of the SLG and the Galapagos Marine Reserve management plan. 56. Linkages with other GEF Projects: A GEF/World Bank pilot phase project to strengthen Ecuadorian Protected areas has been completed recently. This included some activities for Galapagos, funded largely through non-GEF sources. These activities had no bearing on invasive species control. The GEF appropriated US$ 116,000 to strengthen surveillance of the marine reserve and train GNPS staff in natural resource protection. Block B resources have recently been approved to design a second phase of this protected areas project. However, this will focus on mainland protected areas and completely excludes Galapagos. The second phase will include a biodiversity protection window as a component of the Ecuador Environment Trust Fund, but this will focus exclusively on mainland protected areas, and will not provide funding for invasive species control. 57. During the preparation of the present proposal, a GEF/World Bank medium size project was approved for monitoring biological, social and economic parameters in the Galapagos. The project will evaluate implementation of the Special Galapagos law and hence the main framework for the sustainable development baseline in the province. Whilst this project does not directly address invasive species control it will contribute indirectly to certain bio-invasion management activities particularly through its biological and tourism monitoring components. The first will provide information on ecosystem quality, key endangered species and the integrity of biological communities. This will be useful to determine the effectiveness of bio-invasion control measures. Co-funding resources have been leveraged through CDF to maintain monitoring beyond the two-year period of the medium project. The second will provide data on compliance with the carrying capacity limits of the tourist sites defined in the 1996 GNP Management Plan and on the presence of alien species at these sites. This will feed into the predictive risk models to be developed through this project. It will not directly reduce the proximate threats to biodiversity or focus on invasive species control. Agreements have been reached to execute this monitoring project in close co-ordination with the present proposal as part of a programmatic approach to conservation in the Galapagos. Finally, close links will also be maintained with the global medium sized UNEP-SCOPE project that partially supports some elements of the Global Invasives Species Program and identifies new tools for control. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION58. Implementation and Execution Arrangements: The proposed project will be implemented through UNDP under national execution modalities. The Ministry of the Environment will have overall responsibility for the project. The Galapagos unit, housed in the Ministry’s Quito headquarters, would be the official institutional focal point to facilitate operational procedures with UNDP and other funding sources. The unit will be strengthened through the project to enable it to effectively co-ordinate and programme the activities of the various project partners in the archipelago. It would also be responsible for ensuring that any new initiatives in the Province fully support invasive species control. At a general level, it will be responsible for project monitoring, and in particular for ensuring that execution is fully congruent with national environmental policies. 59. A project management unit (PMU) will be established in Galapagos to co-ordinate, supervise and assist in project implementation. A general project manager, who will report directly to the Galapagos Unit of the MA and UNDP at regular intervals, will head this. Two Project Officials will assist the manager as well as an administrative assistant and a financial unit. Each official will be in charge of supporting the implementation of three outputs, checking technical and financial aspects and their consistency with operational plans, and assisting executing institutions to prepare technical reports. The financial unit, composed of a financial director and an assistant, will carry out financial monitoring and assist project executors to prepare financial reports and administer resources according to UNDP rules. The PMU unit will count with the support of a technical advisory group (TAG), charged with providing overall guidance on technical matters and consisting of international experts in invasive species control and elected representatives of national environmental NGOs. 60. A range of different governmental and non-governmental organisations will implement activities in accordance with their respective expertise and mandates. To facilitate co-ordinated action, one institution will be assigned lead responsibility for the management and implementation of each output. A Galapagos based co-ordinator will be appointed for each output by the responsible institution, and will take part in annual project programming activities, thus ensuring that co-ordinated planning and execution of outputs occurs. Once it is fully established SESA-Galapagos would be responsible for Output 1, focusing on prevention measures. However, in the interim, GNPS and CDF will manage this output with GNPS responsible for reporting. The CDFRS will be responsible for control planning and research (Output 2). GNPS will be responsible for pilot projects (Output 3), within the existing GNPS/CDF bi-institutional arrangement framework. The CDF would have responsibility for trust fund development (Output 4), with the assistance of contracted expertise. In view of the importance of the public outreach component, this will executed by a Directive Council involving 4 institutions (GNPS, CFD, INGALA, Natura Foundation), whose Executive Secretary will be the GNPS. Finally INGALA will be responsible for regional and sectoral planning. 61. Specific arrangements have been made for the execution of the Isabela eradication pilot project in view of its size and complexity. A GNPS-CDF bi-institutional arrangement was set-up in 1998 to plan this component. This is led by the Isabela Project Specialised Unit (IPSS) which will handle both technical field operations and overall project management and report to directors of both CDFRS and GNPS. To minimise administrative costs, equipment acquisition and financial accounting for the Isabela project will be undertaken by the PMU’s financial unit. In order to maintain linkages with other project outputs, the Isabela co-ordinator will be based within the PMU.
63. Incremental Costs: The GEF alternative, excluding all preparation costs, has been costed at US$ 104.96 million over 6 years with a baseline expenditure of US$ 63.43 million. The incremental cost of this, detailed in Annex A, is US$ 41.54 million. Of this amount, 56%, or US$ 23.24 million would be provided by non-GEF sources. GEF would provide 44% of the incremental cost and 17.44% of total GEF Alternative. The budget is presented below by output and funding source:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||