Project brief identifiers
|
|  Yüklə 0.84 Mb.
|
|
Selection Criteria for Indicator Species and Sampling Locations Species will be selected for the monitoring program based on the following criteria: Species should: 1. Be representative of their communities: Represent different trophic levels; Interact with a variety of species; Respond to a variety of environmental components (abiotic and biotic factors). 2. Be easy to monitor: Easily detected in the environment to reduce sampling effort; Abundant so that adequate samples can be obtained; Easily captured or measured if needed. 3. Have baseline data available: Preferably have data from previous research in Galápagos. 4. Have high global conservation values: Endemic species that inhabit only a single island will be given priority. Less significance will be accorded to non-endemic native species that inhabit all islands. 5. In the case of exotic species, exhibit significant threats to indigenous organisms or have large potential for dispersal. Sampling localities will be selected to spread monitoring effort across areas facing anthropogenic change, particularly from the colonisation of invasive species and those insulated from severe anthropogenic pressures. All areas surrounding airports and maritime ports have the highest priority –to facilitate the early detection of arriving exotic species. The five inhabited islands (Baltra, Floreana, Isabela, San Cristóbal, and Santa Cruz) form a group with the highest probability of anthropogenic change. A group with the lowest probability includes nearly pristine islands with few or no sites presently visited by tourists. These include the islands of Genovesa, Fernandina, Marchena, Wolf and Darwin. Islands with intermediate probability of change include Española, Pinta, Pinzón, Santa Fé, and Rábida. Annex C: STAP Roster Technical Review of Project BriefIntroduction Invasive species represent, after habitat destruction, the greatest threat to biodiversity today, although it is one that is not fully acknowledged by conservationists. This proposal to counter the threats from past and future invasions by alien species to the Galapagos World Heritage site, with its unique biodiversity and evolutionary significance, is of major significance not only locally and regionally but also globally.While total control of invasive species of plants and animals is almost certainly impossible, current investment in both research and action to control and manage their effects in the Galapagos, a flagship area of biodiversity, is inadequate despite the major commitments already made by the Government of Ecuador and bodies such as the Charles Darwin Foundation. The proposal is comprehensive, highly ambitious and multidisciplinary and aims to prevent future successful invasions, develop and demonstrate cost-effective means of eradication, control and mitigation, build up research capacity, establish appropriate financial mechanisms for the costs of control and capacity building, and build up public awareness in both the archipelago and the mainland. The proposal is fully detailed, well presented, and carefully argued and will, if accepted, make a major contribution to the GEF portfolio. Scientific and technical aspects The proposal clearly recognizes that the control and management of invasive species, the mitigation of their effects and the prediction of which species may become a threat to a particular area such as the Galapagos Archipelago, involves an extremely costly and complex set of operations, involving not only scientific and technical challenges but also major social, cultural and economic dimensions. It details (in Annex F, Threats Assessment) the threats to biodiversity in the Archipelago that persist despite the actions taken by the government, including the gazetting of 97% of the land area as a national park and the creation of a marine reserve, and the declaration of the Islands as a World Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve. The overall goal of the project is ‘Conservation of endemic and native biodiversity in the Galapagos Archipelago and preservation of natural evolutionary processes’, and the purpose is to develop ‘an integrated and permanent system for the Total Control of Invasive Species that permits the long term conservation of the Galapagos archipelago’. Of course ‘total control’ is an almost unachievable goal but the series of outputs, actions and indicators (see Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix) that it proposes are all well established approaches and should go as far as is possible to meet this end. The project does recognize that the complexity of ecological processes rarely permits the adoption of a single option in a given scenario and it proposes to develop a spectrum of management options through a series of pilot or demonstration projects At project completion it is aimed to ensure that ‘populations of indicator endemic and native species are maintained at stable levels and indicator invasive species are reduced or eradicated’ and it refers to Annex B Table 1: Biological Indicators. A clearer explanation of what is meant by indicator species and how they are defined and selected is needed. [The significance of scientific/common names of indicator species in bold face needs clarifying] A curious omission in the series of actions proposed is the lack of reference to any ex situ programme which is an important element of any integrated long-term conservation plan, to complement the on-going and planned in situ conservation action. In particular for areas such as habitat restoration and population reinforcement of endangered species, nurseries or botanic garden facilities for raising and multiplying stock will be needed, and, in addition, well sampled and documented ex situ stocks, especially of highly endangered species, should be maintained as an insurance policy. The role of the University of Copenhagen Botanic Garden in maintaining seed and other germplasm of Galapagos plants is not mentioned. Another omission is the failure to refer to the international context of work in the area of invasive species, apart from the CBD (even so COP Decision IV/1 C Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, is not mentioned). For example, no mention is made of the SCOPE Global Strategy on Invasive Species, the Norway/UN Conference on Alien Species and national strategies developed in areas such as Mauritius, South Africa, Hawai’i and New Zealand although it is assumed that those preparing the project were aware of these and the invaluable sources of information and ideas that they represent. The project is not without considerable risks. As noted in Annex F under root causes of threats, there are no known methodologies for controlling and eradicating many invasive species and a great deal of targetted research and experimentation, some of which will take many years to demonstrate their effectiveness, will be needed. Another major area of risk that is difficult to quantify or plan for is the effect of extreme climatic events such as intense El Niño episodes. The project is highly complex and involves a whole series of actions, research projects, demonstrations, control and mitigation measures, extension and education, all of which will require significant personnel, training, preparation of materials, new procedures and cost-recovery mechanisms. It is not clear what manpower is needed and what is already available. Global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks The scale of the operations proposed will certainly mean that the results will confer great global benefits. Belated recognition by the international conservation and biodiversity communities of the risks posed by invasive species, despite programmes such as the SCOPE initiatives for a Global Strategy on Invasive Species, means that the combined series of actions proposed for the Galapagos will attract considerable attention and will be used as a source of guidance and reference. At the same time it has to be recognized that it is not always possible to extrapolate from one situation or area to another: a species that is highly invasive on one island may pose no immediate or obvious threat on an adjacent one; and all too little is yet known about the invasibility of different ecosystems. The GEF context, goals and operational strategies, Council guidance and provisions of the relevant Conventions As far as I am aware, the GEF portfolio does not so far contain any substantial projects devoted to the control and eradication of invasive species although it is mentioned in its Operational Programmes. Certainly, this is a very complex problem for which there are no easy, fast or cheap solutions but this project would be instrumental in opening new ground for what GEF could fund. It is a very important problem in an area of ooutstanding relevance for an institution such as the GEF. Article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to ‘Prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’. The Conference of the Parties to the CBD has addressed the issue in its Decision IV/1 C (Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species). Regional context The Galapagos, which are today a province of Ecuador, are true oceanic islands and situated at the point of convergence of the principal currents of the eastern Pacific. The mechanisms put in project and the lessons learned will be of great value for the region as a whole, including mainland Ecuador. Replicability As noted above, it is not possible to assert categorically that the experience obtained from this project would be directly applicable in other situations, either in terms of species or habitat types. We still do not yet know enough neither about the characteristics that make species invasive nor about the invasibility of habitats to be able to apply a high degree of predictivity to such situations. On the other hand, it is certain that many lessons will be learned from the science, techniques, methodologies, structures and strategies that will be employed or developed during this project, and these will be applicable in other situations, even though there may not be a direct correspondence. This is such a major project in the field of invasive species that will inevitably serve as a model and reference point for other similar work in different parts of the world. Sustainability The institutional mechanisms and structures proposed for creation or strengthening in the proposal should ensure the sustainability of the procedures for control, eradication, management and mitigation of invasive species and their effects. Output 4 of the project proposal is for an expanded financial mechanism to be made operational and permit the permanent funding of invasive species control activities in the Galapagos by the CDF and the GNPS. In addition to government sources, it is proposed that the already existing Darwin Scientific Foundation endowment be expanded to a fund, The Galapagos Trust Fund. Other financial partners are identified in the proposal. Contribution to the improved definition and implementation of GEF strategies and policies Thus project will make a major contribution to defining a GEF strategy for the control and management of invasive species. It will also serve to widen the GEF approach to integrated conservation. Secondary issues
The project by its multidisciplinary nature links in with protected area management, global (especially climatic) change, trade issues, capacity building and education.
The project is strongly linked with other conservation and biodiversity initiatives and agricultural and marketing programmes supported by agencies of the Government of Ecuador, inter-governmental bodies, national and international NGOs and private donors. These include a GEF/World Bank pilot project to strengthen Protected Areas in Ecuador and another for monitoring biological, social and economic parameters in the Galapagos, extensive programmes by the CDF and work on habitat restoration supported by WWF.
As the project summary states, the management of invasive species is unlikely to succeed without the active co-operation of the Islands’ 16 000 residents and a great deal of effort will be devoted to ensuring their active involvement in planning and executing operations, as well as making provision for community awareness building and education (Output 5 of the project).
Capacity building of key institutions responsible for quarantine and inspection, invasive species control, mitigation and education and awareness is an essential component of the project.
The sheer scale and complexity of this project and the issues to be covered by makes it exceptional. While it largely builds on established methodologies and practice, some of the operations proposed are on such a scale as to make it unique in the field of invasive species management, control, eradication and mitigation. Conclusions This is probably the best prepared and argued GEF proposal that I have come across since operations started. It refers to an area of outstanding importance for the conservation of biodiversity and one that has received little attention hitherto in the GEF portfolio. The issues it raises are of global importance and I strongly recommend it for acceptance by the GEF Council. Professor Vernon Heywood Centre for Plant Diversity and systematics School of Plant Sciences The University of Reading, UK 22 December 1999 Annex CI: Response to STAP Review Comment: A clearer explanation of what is meant by indicator species and how they are defined and selected is needed. [The significance of scientific/common names of indicator species in bold face needs clarifying] Response: The bold face in Annex B, Table 1 is the result of a formatting error, and is not intended to underscore the significance of some species as indicators. This has been corrected. The Table provides a list of indicator/ target species including 1] native and endemic species, threatened by invasive species; and 2] alien species that are the target of management control efforts. As the management program advances, additional species will be added to the list. Because it is impossible to monitor all species everywhere in the archipelago, monitoring programs must, by necessity, concentrate on a subset of species and localities. A note has been added to the table to explain the criteria for selection. Comment: Well sampled and documented ex situ stocks, especially of highly endangered species, should be maintained as an insurance policy. The role of the University of Copenhagen’s Botanic Garden in maintaining seed and other germplasm of Galapagos plants is not mentioned. Response: A new paragraph has been added to the proposal (para. 14) to describe the captive breeding efforts of the CDRS, GNPS and the University of Copenhagen’s Botanic Gardens in Denmark. Comment: Another omission is the failure to refer to the international context of work in the area of invasive species, apart from the CBD (even so COP Decision IV/1 C Alien species that threaten ecosystems, habitats or species, is not mentioned). For example, no mention is made of the SCOPE Global Strategy on Invasive Species, the Norway/UN Conference on Alien Species and national strategies developed in areas such as Mauritius, South Africa, Hawai’i and New Zealand although it is assumed that those preparing the project were aware of these and the invaluable sources of information and ideas that they represent. Response: COP Decision IV/1 C on Alien Species is referred to in paragraph 49. The CDRS is already collaborating with the SCOPE project GISP (Global Invasive Species Program), as indicated in para 53. [The Director of GISP has visited the CDRS and the CDRS and GISP are collaborating on a book about invasive species issues.] The proposed UNDP/GEF project would seek to further cement these linkages. It is intended that management controls on invasive species be performed in consultation with management authorities in other small island environments. This is clarified in a footnote number 12. Comment: It is not clear what manpower is needed and what is already available. Response: The staffing endowments of management authorities and new manpower needs are now detailed in paragraph 58. Further information on this aspect will be provided in the project document. Annex D: Focal Point Endorsement 
Annex E: Biodiversity of the Galapagos Archipelago1. Endemic Species in the Galapagos
(MacFarland & Cifuentes, 1996) 2. Size distribution of the Galapagos islands correlated with levels of isolation
Snell H. L. (unpublished) Programme Leader, Vertebrate Ecology and Monitoring CD Research Station, & Associate Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 3. Endemism by Island Size Groups
(Snell unpublished)
(Snell unpublished) 5. Impacts of introduced species
Archipelagos
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||