Project brief identifiers

Community Participation Local communities are well-aware of the importance of conserving the islands. However, there are few specific measures to permit community participation in the invasives control effort. The GNPS has radio and television channels, a communication and education programme for teachers, agriculturists, tourist operators, and students and an extremely effective network of park guides. Equipment is outdated and activities are often suspended due to inadequate funding. CDF also runs a public outreach programme that uses the print, radio and television media for information dissemination, and orchestrates conservation and solid waste management campaigns through community action groups. Despite these efforts, community awareness of the risk of bio-invasions is low. Baseline appropriations to continue the afore-mentioned efforts are costed at US$ 3. 45 million— comprised of US$ 0.32m from the GNPS, US$ 2.84m channelled through the CDF from a variety of donors and GEF US$ 0.29 through the Medium project to undertake socio-economic monitoring. More specific and targeted public outreach programs will be required if the participation of communities in invasive species management is to be engineered.

Regional and Sectoral Planning . Until recently regional and sectoral plans for Galapagos were developed by INEFAN from its central headquarters in Quito with little input from local institutions, which in any case lacked the mandate or resources to ensure that development activities were married with conservation efforts. The SLG calls for participatory planning at the regional and local levels and assigns this responsibility to INGALA. This institution is currently being restructured to assume its new mandate. Baseline investments for delivering these expanded responsibilities are costed at US$ 1.21 million, of which US$ 0.99m are derived from the SLG provisions and US$ 0.22 through the GEF medium project for monitoring tourism parameters and to enhance information flow to a range of institutions, improving overall conservation planning and management. However, this will not sufficiently cover the cost of integrating invasive species control in sector strategies.

Contamination. Solid and liquid waste management in the inhabited isl;ands of the Galapagos contributes to localised but growing contamination and habitat destruction. It also constitutes a root cause of the invasive species threat as waste disposal sites can provide a locus for the propagation and dispersal of exotic species. Municipalities undertake limited basic sanitation measures to reduce these threats, which have been costed at US$ 2.7 million over six years. Further baseline investments, costed at US$ 7.18m will be made to provide more effective solid-waste disposal through the IDB-funded Galapagos Environmental Management Programme.

Natural Resource Management. GNPS is responsible for natural resource management in the Galapagos and with support from CDF has extended protection to over 97% of the Galapagos landmass for the last forty years. The sunk cost of the protection program is estimated at US$45 million over the last five years alone. This includes GNP and GRM up-keep and surveillance costs, the development of regulatory norms and instruments to control illegal logging, hunting and over-exploitation of specific resources, and recovery campaigns for critically low endemic species populations and habitats. Baseline expenditure for natural resource management is costed at US$ 23.33 million. This consists of US$ 8.0m for GNP and GMR surveillance (percentage SLG provisions for the GNPS for GNP and GMR; and SLG provision for the Ecuadorian navy for GMR surveillance); US$ 2.35 for surveillance of natural resource exploitation in the GMR channelled through CDF to the GNPS; US$ 7.12m from the EMG-IDB programme for implementing priority actions of the GMR management plan and for GNPS institutional strengthening; US$ 0.75m from USAID for increasing local participation in GMR management;US$ 4.0 million from a AECI–funded Galapagos project for improving tourism and artisanal fisheries sustainability; and US$ 0.1 million through the GEF MSP to monitor fishing.

4. 
   GEF Alternative
   

4.1 The baseline will generate substantial global conservation benefits by maintaining much of the Galapagos as a protected area. The GEF alternative would cover the major programmatic gaps identified in the baseline by providing a one-time investment to strengthen the framework for invasive species control. Through targeted eradication and control campaigns, it would also provide immediate relief to endangered fauna and flora in over half of the archipelago’s landmass. The project activities have been grouped into six outputs.

Output 1: Prevention services will be consolidated and expanded to better protect biodiversity and natural evolutionary processes. These enhanced services will not produce tangible short-term domestic benefits and are complementary, required for biodiversity protection rather than domestic needs (i.e. maintaining human health standards and agricultural and livestock quality). In the much longer-term, some increased domestic benefits may occur by reducing the risks to populations of charismatic species that are important for the tourism industry. In view of this, non-GEF resources totalling US$ 1.48 million have been leveraged for this component, out of a total cost of US$ 2.73 million. Co-financing is partitioned as follows:- UNF, US$ 0.29 million for an emergency rapid response team and acquiring communication equipment for SICGAL; GoE US$ 0.16m for up-grading monitoring capacities in ‘hotspots’ for species introduction; USAID, US$ 0.01 for equipment for SICGAL; IDB, US$ 1.0 for equipment for SICGAL and training inspectors and technicians; and CDF US$ 0.01 to complement SICGAL training. GEF resources, amounting to US$ 1.25 m will contribute to the purchase and development of basic equipment and infrastructure, strengthen co-ordination of quarantine actions and fund a study to assess how the transport system may be adapted to reduce the risk of species dispersal between islands.

Output 2: Planning and Research will be developed to produce the scientific information required to develop and implement management controls against invasive species. This would result principally in global benefits by providing scientific knowledge that raises controls beyond that needed to protect economic sectors such as agriculture. Short to medium term domestic benefits to tourism would also be intangible. Current visitation levels are attributed to the still outstanding environmental quality of the archipelago and the image of its role in the history of natural sciences, rather than detailed knowledge of sub-species, races, population dynamics and ecosystem structure and function. The total cost of the output is US$ 4.47 million. Despite its largely complementary nature, co-funding of US$ 2.51m has been secured. This is partitioned as follows.- CDF, US$ 1.47 m for a scientists exchange programme on IS management, for a research and planning unit with infrastructure and equipment to develop predictive and prescriptive control models and extend the biological monitoring beyond the GEF medium project end; EU US$ 0.34m for complementing the IS planning system; WWF US$ 0.7 m for research into habitat restoration and development of new eradication methods. The GEF resources amounting to US$ 1.97 m will complement co-funding resources and some of the running costs of the unit.

Output 3: Demonstration projects will be implemented to overcome barriers and management challenges that currently impede more effective control and eradication action. Tangible short-term domestic benefits are not expected from the majority of these demonstration projects, although in the long-term the increased institutional capacity that they provide will enhance the protection of the islands. Substantial resources have been leveraged as co-funding that more than offset any long-term domestic benefits that may be derived from this component. The output is costed at US$ 12.03. Co-funding amounts to US$ 4.05, partitioned as follows: CDF US$ 1.8m for complementing the feral goat and plant demonstration projects; GoE US$ 0.88m for complementing the feral goat project and UNF US$ 1.37 for specific demonstration projects targeting the fire ant and biting black fly. GEF resources will total US$ 7.98m, channelled mainly to the Isabela project that, in addition to strengthening the capacity for mega-size population management, will deliver immediate and substantial global benefits by removing feral goat pressure from populations of 66% of the endemic vertebrates and 40% of the endemic vascular plants of Galapagos. The eradication of these populations will not produce any measurable domestic benefits. Tourism levels are not effected by the presence of this mega-population. Very few visitors to the archipelago are aware of the goat problem. Moreover, visitation to northern Isabela is strictly limited to a very low number of tourists and there is only one small landing site and visitor area that could be maintained free from goats by alternative, much more economic, options if the objective were to sustain tourism rather than biodiversity. No avoided costs are expected as a result of habitat restoration post goat eradication, as this part of the island is uninhabited and no environmental services are afforded to local populations from it. Any minor effect on local livelihoods following goat eradication will be compensated for by activities designed to promote land based tourist initiatives in southern Isabela, an initiative that will be 100%co-financed (see output 6).

Output 4. A permanent financial mechanism for conservation in the Galapagos will be established. This mechanism (which, over the medium term will provide incremental funding to sustain bio-invasion controls) will be complementary to baseline activities and will ensure the sustained impact of the larger GEF Alternative. (Further details of baseline funding arrangements are provided in Annex H). The Alternative is costed at US$ 16.51. The GEF will appropriate US$ 0.89 million to create the necessary governance and administrative structures need to operate the fund, and implement a campaign to raise capital for the corpus. The GEF would also provide a US$ 5 million capital grant to the fund. Co-funding amounts to US$ 10.62 million and is partitioned as follows: UNF, US$ 1.08 challenge grant to start-up capitalisation. Private Sector US$ 9.45 million divided as follows: US$ 0.45 m to support the Galapagos International Relations Unit, US$ 1.0m, for which negotiations are well advanced, to match the UNF challenge grant, US$ 8.00 m to be leveraged through the fund-raising campaign. The CDF will allocate US$ 0.09m for strengthening the fund-raising capacities of the FOG organisations.

Output 5: A participation and awareness strategy for invasive species control will be developed. The total cost of this will be US$ 1.50m of which US$ 1.19m will be from non-GEF sources:- UNF US$ 0.26m for developing the communication strategy and supporting its implementation; WWF US$ 0.5m for implementing the communication and awareness campaign and IDB US$ 0.43 m for strengthening the capacity of GNPS and CDF to sustain campaigns in the medium term. The GEF would contribute a total of US$ 0.31m to complement co-funding sources and assure the continuation of the monitoring effort beyond the two year life of the Medium sized project, until the DSF is fully restructured and can sustain this action independently.

Output 6: An invasive species management overlay for regional and sectoral planning will be developed through local participatory planning methods to ensure IS control measures are incorporated into sectoral activities. Total costs of this output are US$ 4.30 million. To offset any long term domestic benefits that may arise from this component co-funding of US$ 3.4 million has been secured, partitioned as follows:- IDB US$ 1.45 m for developing I.S waste management polices, evaluating locally-based tourism demonstrations in non-protected areas, and training INGALA staff for improved planning; UNDP 0.2 m for competitiveness and sustainability studies in the tourism sector; Private sector, US$ 0.65 million to develop and implement a certification system for tourism ventures; AECI, US$ 1 million to implement priority actions identified in the agricultural strategy; UNFPA, US$ 0.1 million for the design and application of population policies. GEF resources for this output would amount to a total of US$ 0.90 million to complement co-funding resources for developing the I.S overlay, and ensuring the co-ordination of the wide range of initiatives relating to the Galapagos

5. Incremental Costs and Benefits
The systems boundary for the project is defined geographically by the Galapagos archipelago including landmasses and marine areas of the GMR as well as the main exit points on the continent that require prevention measures for successful invasive species control. The temporal scope of analysis is six years. The thematic boundary includes the various interventions required for invasive species control and to address other threats to biodiversity in the Galapagos. The cost of the baseline scenario is estimated at US$ 63.43 million. The cost of the GEF alternative, excluding preparation and administration, has been costed at US$ 104.96. US$ 18.30 million are requested from the GEF through this proposal. This represents 17.43% of the total GEF alternative, and will yield sizeable and almost entirely global benefits. Domestic benefits of the GEF alternative would be largely intangible and occur over the medium and long-term, nevertheless substantial co-funding amounting to US$ 23.24 million have been leveraged to cover project costs. Considerably larger resources are expected to be levered in the long-term (> 10years) through the Trust Fund and fund-raising campaign.

Incremental Cost Matrix

Component	Cost Category	Cost (in US$ million)	Domestic Benefit	Global Benefit
Output 1: Prevention	Sustainable Development Baseline	GoE/SGL= 2.06 USAID= 0.35 CDF= 1.24 Total = 3.65	Reduced rates of IS introduction from the continent increases agricultural & livestock protection. Overall quality of environment remains high enough to sustain tourist visitation levels but invasive species threat not fully contained.	Introduction of IS reduced from rates of previous decade thus providing increased protection to endemic biodiversity, particularly at the habitat and between species levels, but high dispersal of IS within and between islands continues to threaten within species biodiversity.
	GEF Alternative	Total = 6.38	Agricultural and livestock qualities protected. Long-term indirect benefits to tourism may be generated by maintaining the image of the Galapagos as a living-laboratory for the study of evolutionary processes.	Reduced risks of colonisation by new exotic species leads to improved long-term survival of endemic species & habitats. Reduced dispersal of invasive species within and between islands enhances the protection of within species biodiversity.
	Increment	GEF = 1.25 UNF = 0.29 GoE = 0.16 USAID = 0.01 IDB = 1.00 CDF = 0.01 Total = 2.67
Output 2: IS Adaptive Management Mechanisms	Sustainable Development Baseline	GoE= 0.57 CDF=7.26 GEF.Med = 0.33 Total = 8.16	Scientific research on Galapagos ecosystem’ supports conservation efforts and IS control at levels to sustain tourist & agricultural sectors. Lack of systematic IS planning and research leads to poorly co-ordinated, site-specific, less effective control of IS & continued pressure on endemic biodiversity	Advanced knowledge of the Galapagos and its evolutionary processes enhances the conservation of its ecosystems. Site-specific advances in knowledge occurs. Overall IS threat increases as the absence of sounder scientific & planning basis correlates with ineffective IS management
	GEF Alternative	Total = 12.63	Improved IS research permits continued and enhanced protection of agricultural and livestock activities and increases long-term protection of ecosystem integrity.	Enhanced IS management within a sound, well programmed & cost-effective framework provides more comprehensive protection of Galapagos’ global biodiversity values and provides global lessons
	Increment	GEF =1.97 CDF = 1.47 EU = 0.34 WWF = 0.70 Total = 4.37
Output 3: IS Control and Eradication Pilot Projects	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	GoE/SGL= 6.41 CDF=5.34 Total=11.75	Control efforts remain site and species specific. Tourist visitation sites remain free of most aggressive invasives; agricultural land is partially protected but IS management remains weak	Some populations of endemic species are protected and natural habitats recovered but in overall terms, IS increase in number and existing populations expand; rapid habitat destruction in northern Isabela
	GEF Alternative	Total = 23.78	Improved IS control and better long-term protection of terrestrial and coastal ecosystems in the Galapagos	Major challenges of IS management overcome permitting more effective long term control of invasives. Immediate relief provided to populations of 66% of endemic vertebrates and 40% plants.
	Increment	GEF = 7.98 UNF = 1.37 GoE = 0.88 CDF = 1.80 Total = 11.63
Output 4: Sustainable Funding Mechanisms	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	CDF=3.00 Total = 3.00	Provisions of sustained resources maintain quarantine services and protected areas at levels for domestic needs. Lack of secure resources for research, planning &control operations causes fluctuations in IS efforts & increases impacts on biodiversity	IS management sustained at a site-specific level. Limited reduction of the IS threat in overall terms although the sustained action of GNPS & CDF in the protected areas provides some protection to global biodiversity values
	GEF Alternative	Total = 19.51	Sustained resources for operations improve IS control management; reduced dependence of CDF on soft resources guarantees more stable research programmes.	Provision of sustained resources keeps IS management at enhanced level, facilitates replication of demonstrations projects throughout archipelago, and broadens range of institutions active in IS control all correlating to more sustained protection of global values
	Increment	GEF = 5.89 UNF = 1.08 CDF = 0.09 Pr. Sector = 9.45 Total = 17.12
Output 5: IS Participation and Awareness Outreach	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	GoE=0.32 CDF=2.84 GEFMed=0.29 Total= 3.45	Levels of environmental awareness in local communities facilitate eco-tourism but do not contribute to IS control and high dependence on imported goods increases risk of species introductions. Lack of awareness causes resistance to costly eradication campaigns.	Continued local support for general conservation action but low levels of public participation and awareness on IS issues reduces effectiveness of control and eradication campaigns
	GEF Alternative	Total = 4.95	Improved awareness of invasive species threat and long-term relationship to agriculture and tourism increases acceptance of any new importation duties and fee-systems levied for IS control services	Increased public participation enhances IS management, the success rates of eradication campaigns, and facilitates the early detection of new introductions. Prospects for sustained IS control improved.
	Increment	GEF = 0.31 WWF=0.50 UNF = 0.26 IDB = 0.43 Total = 1.49
Output 6: IS overlay for regional and sectoral planning	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	GoE/SGL= 0.99 GEFMed=0.22 Total = 1.21	Increased local ownership and participation in developmental processes but weak capacities for new planning mandates increases the risk of sector development, negatively effecting conservation efforts and increasing IS problems.	Local stakeholders play greater roles in developmental planning but have low awareness of the role that sectoral activities play in the IS threat and lack polices, guidelines and tools to incorporate control measure to reduce negative impacts.
	GEF Alternative	Total =5.51	Improved planning capacities and co-ordination amongst local players provides a solid basis for fulfilling new mandates & facilitates implementation of the SGL that ties development in the Galapagos to ecosystem carrying capacity and IS control.	Invasive species overlay for planning and implementing sectoral development enhances overall IS management and improves long-term prospects for biodiversity protection. Tourism and agricultural sectors contribute more fully to invasive species control.
	Increment	GEF =0.90 IDB = 1.45 Pri.Sec.=0.65 AECI=1.00 UNDP=0.20 UNFPA=0.1 Total =4.26
Prevention of Water Pollution	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	Loc.Gov=2.70 IDB=7.18 Total = 9. 88	Galapagos inhabitants have improved waste disposal services and localised contamination is controlled	Sensitive habitat and endangered coastal species are relieved from the pressure of localised water pollution.
	GEF Alternative	0	-	-
	Increment	0	--	-
Natural resource Management	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	GoE/SGL=8.00 IDB=7.12 USAID = 0.75 CDF=2.35 AECI= 4.00 GEFMed=0.10 Total = 22.33	GMR surveillance & expanded fishing free zones increase the protection of fish stocks but sustainable catch levels are unclear and some species continue to be depleted.	Protection of marine biodiversity will continue through the expanded GMR & its improved surveillance. The recently approved GMR management plan will be implemented & evaluated to identify further actions required to fully protect global marine biodiversity values
	Increment	0
TOTAL COST	Sustainable DevelopmentBaseline	63.43
	GEF Alternative	Total Project: 104.96 Including PDF: 105.34
	Increment	Full Project: 18.30 PDF: A and B: 0.38 Total GEF: 18.68 Co-financing: 23.24