Goal:
Conservation of endemic and native biodiversity in the Galapagos Archipelago and preservation of natural evolutionary processes.
|
At project completion:
1. Populations of indicator endemic and native species are maintained at stable levels and indicator invasive species are reduced and/or eradicated (see Annex B, Table 1).
2. Demographic growth is < than continental Ecuador (<1.6%).
3. Galapagos remains off the ‘World Heritage Sites in Danger’ list.
|
1. Biological monitoring
2. National population censuses and register of inhabitants
3. UNESCO -World Heritage Committee Minutes
| -
The majority of endemic and native species populations at risk have the capacity to recuperate following IS control and eradication efforts.
-
Regulations under the Special Law for Galapagos are formalised and applied.
|
Purpose:
Develop an integrated and permanent system for the Total Control* of Invasive Species that permits the long term conservation of the Galapagos archipelago.
[* As defined in the Glossary of the Special Law for Galapagos –prevention, control, eradication and mitigation]
|
At project completion:
-
Northern Isabela island is liberated from damaging ecological impacts of feral goats.
-
Biological monitoring reveals a reduction in IS colonisation.
-
Local institutions have increased their capacity to apply a variety of eradication methods within the archipelago and regional & local planning processes take IS problems into consideration in the development of plans, programs & projects.
-
The GNP and CDF annual work plans are geared towards operationalising the bio-invasion control strategy.
|
1. Monitoring reports
2. Monitoring reports / external evaluations / scientific audits.
3. INGALA GNP, CDF annual work plans/ Results of Biological Indicator Monitoring /External evaluations
4. GNP and CDF work plans & Number of pilot projects replicated by end of 6 year
| -
Climatic events (such as El Niño) will not be so extreme as to prejudice the adaptation capacity of the Total Control System.
-
Baseline activities related to solid and liquid waste management and marine reserve management attain their goals.
-
Resources to finance recurring conservation activities in GNP are maintained near current levels.
|
Output 1: A co-ordinated inspection and quarantine system for Galapagos is in place with the full participation of local institutions and with clearly defined procedures and detection techniques.
|
1.1 Existing IS monitoring system extended to all seaports and airports by year 2.
1.2. In the third year, rapid action mechanisms to identify and eradicate or control recently introduced species are operating with the full participation of local residents.
1.3.By the third year, an optimum cargo transportation system for IS management is in place.
1.4 By the fourth year, SICGAL has the technical and institutional ability to carry out introduction/ dispersal - prevention interventions for non-native species.
|
1.1. Signed agreements with seaport and airport authorities.
1.2. Project documents / external eval.
1.3. Project documents / external eval. / auto-evaluation of SICGAL.
1.4.Project doc. / ext. evaluation/INGALA resolutions.
| -
Baseline operations related to the Total Control of IS, developed by the GNP and the CDRS, are fully functioning and achieve their goals.
-
Government and non-government institutions collaborate effectively in addressing management needs.
-
Transportation policies between the continent and the Galapagos are not changed in a manner that would reduce the efficacy of control activities.
-
Agricultural policies on the continent do not change in ways that would favour increased importation of goods to Galapagos.
|
Output 2: Adaptive management mechanisms established to develop and up-date a scientifically sound, well-programmed and cost-effective bio-invasion control programme.
|
2.1 A comprehensive I.S control research programme developed by the end of year 1.
2.2 An I.S control research unit created in the CDRS set-up by the end of the second year.
2.3. By year 5, operational costs of the CDRS research unit are transferred to other funding sources.
2.4. A collection and database of aggressive invasives is created during the first year of the project and continually updated.
2.5. By year 4, a prioritisation methodology is designed & being applied. By the end of year 6, an agreed and fully financed plan of action for Total Control of IS is being executed.
2.6. By year 6, new methodologies developed & tested for vertebrate, invertebrate & plant invasive control & eradication.
2.7 International advisory group meeting held annually to provide advice on control methods and input to M&E.
|
2.1. Plan document
2.2 Tripartite evaluation
2.3. CDRS annual work plan / tripartite evals.
2.4. Data base
2.5. Methodology docs. / total control plan / external eval.
2.6. Publications, results of testing
2.7. Advisory group minutes
|
|
Output 3:
A series of eradication and control pilot projects implemented to eliminate critical invasive species populations and to strengthen the technical & operational capacity of parties* with IS control responsibilities
(* SLG art. 55)
|
3.1 Goats completely eliminated from northern Isabela Island by year 6 of the project.
3.2 A continual decline in goats removed per unit effort in southern Isabela throughout the course of the project.
3.3. By the end of year 4, control and eradication methodologies involving other species and other ecological circumstances have been validated.
3.4. By year 6, various experiments have been analysed and results have been published.
3.5. By the end of year 6, a plan to replicate control and eradication activities undertaken during the project has been developed and approved, with dedicated funding sources identified.
|
3.1 Biological monitoring
/ external eval.
3.2. Hunt database
3.3. Advisory group minutes / external evaluation.
3.4. Publications
3.5.Total control plan with replication plan /INGALA resolution/GNPS & CDF work plans
|
|
Output 4:
An expanded and efficiently operating financial mechanism is operationalized permitting the permanent funding of IS control activities in the Galapagos
|
4.1 By end year 1 an intensive fund-raising campaign is underway for capitalising the fund
4.2. By year 2 a sub-account to hold the assets of the fund is y established within the DSF and has well-defined procedures and bylaws consistent with international norms
4.3. US$10 M raised by year 4 of the project for the Fund, triggering US$ 5 M in GEF seed capital.
|
4.1. Campaign plan
4.2. Bylaws and regulations of the expanded DSF & consensus-building meetings minutes
4.3 Capitalization plan, Bank & fund accounting records
|
|
Output 5:.
A community awareness and participation programme for bio-invasion control is developed.
|
5.1. A public forum established by end of year 1 with participation and management procedures defined and disseminated.
5.2. Participation in the forum continues to grow and meetings resolve the conflicts arising from control, eradication and quarantine measures.
5.3. The number, and geographic and sectoral scope, of private reports on the presence of I.S grows progressively throughout the project.
5.4 At project closure, 85% of the Galapagos community is aware of the problem of I.S and control procedures and responsibilities.
5.5. 80% of the air and marine cargo transport companies conform with procedures established in the SICGAL.
5.6. At least 50% of tourist ship passenger cabins are ‘ecologically certified’ by project completion.
|
5.1.Procedures documents & forum minutes.
5.2. Forum minutes
5.3. Monitoring data and early warning system.
5.4. Periodic surveys
5.5 Inspection reports and surveys.
5.6. GNP Green certificate registry
|
|
Output 6:
A bio-invasion overlay developed for regional planning with a set of guidelines and instruments that ensure that sector developments are consistent with invasive species control needs
|
6.1 Policy development guidelines for key sectors completed by the end of year 2.
6.2 By year 4, regional and local sector policies have incorporated guidelines designed to prevent the establishment and propagation of IS
6.3. By year 2, a tourism sector plan exists which incorporates total control elements.
6.4. In areas newly opened for tourism activities, no new introductions are detected.
6.5 By year 4, an agricultural management policy developed that enhances the control of I.S introduction and dispersal; & resources have been earmarked for its implementation.
6.6. Successful co-ordination of different investment initiatives in Galapagos by the end of year 1.
|
6.1. INGALA policy documents
6.2. IS Impact Procedures and INGALA Manuals
6.3. Evaluation of Tourism Plan document
6.4. Biological Monitoring reports
6.5 Strategy documents / project profile and INGALA operational plans
6.6. Project follow-up matrix / minutes of interagency and inter-institutional meetings
|
|