I. Basic Project Data

Transcription

1 I. Basic Project Data UNDP GEF APR/PIR BIODIVERSITY (1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006) Official Title: Improved Management and Conservation Practices for the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area Country/ies: Costa Rica PIMS Number 1332 UNDP PROJECT NUMBER Atlas Project Number Focal Area Biodiversity Project Type (FSP/MSP) Strategic Priority BD1: Protected Areas Operational Programme Date of Entry into Work Programme 28 APRIL 2003 Planned Project Duration ProDoc Signature Date 02/04/2004 Original Planned Closing Date Date of First Disbursement February 2005 Revised Planned Closing Date Is this the Terminal NO Date Project APR/PIR? Operationally Closed (if applicable) MSP OP2:Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 31/03/08 31/03/09 4 (years) Date Mid Term Evaluation carried out (if applicable) Date Final Evaluation carried out (if applicable) Dates of visits to project by UNDP country office Date of last visit to project by UNDP-GEF RTA May 2006 Date of last TPR Meeting 1

2 Project Contacts: Title Name Date Signature National Project Manager / Coordinator Ronald Vargas Ronald.vargas@sinac.go.cr May, 2006 UNDP Country Office Programme Manager UNDP Regional Technical Advisor Vanessa Zamora Andrew Bovarnick vanessa.zamora@undp.org andrew.bovarnick@undp.org August, 2006 Project Summary (as in PIMS and ProDoc) The project will improve the management of the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area (CIMCA) (including the terrestrial component of the Island), strengthen associated conservation practices and create the appropriate environment to ensure long-term reduction of the threats to the Island, promote sustainable development of its natural resources and conservation of its globally important biodiversity. 2

3 II. Progress towards achieving project objectives Project Objective and Outcomes Objective: Improved Management and Conservation Practices for the Cocos Island Marine Conservation Area Outcome 1:Enforcement and compliance with regulations for marine park protection within ACMIC improved Outcome 2:ACMIC s management of diving and terrestrial tourism to reduce physical damage to the marine and terrestrial ecosystems improved Description of Indicator 1. Key Marine and terrestrial ecosystem in better conditions than at base line 2. Sustainable fishing and tourism practices around ACCMIC identified and enforced 1. Number of vessels brought to court and number of long lines confiscated 1.Number of visitors fulfilling scuba and land/trails rules 2. Presence of keystone species which indicate the health of the ecosystem 3. % of tourism vessels fulfilling anchoring rules Baseline Level Target Level Level at 30 June 2006 Consultant is making an inventory of native and invasive species (quantity, position) in terrestrial ecosystems Recently initiated study for a sustainable tourism management plan within ACCMIC. 65% less than Consultant is baseline working on a diagnosis of legal procedures and monitoring of court cases in this field 80% of scuba divers fulfilling rules. 90% hikers fulfilling trail rules 80% of vessels fulfilling anchoring rules Advances made in the preparation of the visitation plan 3

4 Outcome 3: Pigs erradicated and other key invasive species controlled to allow restorations of native species populations and ecological processes. 4. Maintenance of trails and buildings 1. new species introduced to the Island 2. Areas of forest ecosystems restored 100% of the trails and buildings considered in the project receive maintenance new species introduced in Cocos island by anthropogenic factors 100% recovered Exhibit room design elaborated. Maintenance of trails and buildings in progress Workshop with specialists of introduced species. Strategy on how to proceed discussed. Consultant is making an inventory of native and invasive species (quantity, position) in terrestrial ecosystems Outcome 4: Financial instruments developed to generate revenues to sustain ongoing conservation operations and provide economic incentives to promote sustainable us of the 3. Native fauna indicator species 4. Feral pig population and other key invasive species 1. ACMIC Financial Strategic Plan is official and under implementation 2. New income sources identified and under Population of key indicator species increased (percentage to be determined) Complete eradication of feral pig and other key invasive species ACMIC 2020 Financial Strategic Plan update and evaluated Available budget to Definition of the baseline level in progress Policy under definition Training workshop on 4

5 Island s natural resources. Outcome 5: Relevant policy and legislation to create a functioning and effective enabling environment for ACMIC necessary to support Outcome 1-3 reformed implementation 3. Traditional income sources analyzed, improved and implemented 1. Cocos Island Special law 2. Institutional agreements for control and supervision with relevant ministries ACCMIC increased by 40% in relation to 2005 Available budget to ACCMIC increased by 40% in relation to 2005 Agreements with Ministry of Transportation and INCOPESCA is implementing and enforced fundraising for staff members of ACMIC and FAICO Analysis of fees. Decree, including revaluation and inclusion in the fee of other activities, is in process of approval. Indicator under review Interinstitutional coordination through meetings 5

6 Rating of Project Progress towards Meeting Objective 2005 Rating National Project Manager/Coordinator MS S 2006 Rating Comments The progress is in line with the approved PAT 2006, despite the delays created by the dismissal of the Project Coordinator and the Environmental Officer. Government GEF OFP (optional) UNDP Country Office S U A Project Coordinator has not yet been recruited since the departure of the previous Coordinator (5 months ago). This has had a very detrimental impact on the progress of the activities. A baseline level has not yet been defined for several indicators. UNDP Regional Technical Advisor impact indicators have been defined. U U There has been very limited progress towards changes to the protected areas management, the fisheries or tourism industries or overarching policies that would reduce the threats to Cocos Island and lead to the achievement of the conservation objectives of the project. However, the project still has time to get back on course, make progress and achieve the objectives. Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this: Action to be Taken By Whom? By When? Definition of baseline level, impact indicators and PNUD-SINAC-French End of 2006 project framework Embassy-Coordinator Mission by UNDP GEF to participate in project review and strategic planning UNDP GEF October- vember

7 III. Progress in Project implementation List the 4 key outputs delivered so far for each project Outcome: Project Key Outputs Outcomes Outcome 1: 1. Patrol capacity improved with maintenance of equipment Enforcement and 2. Fishing communities alliances and awareness campaign defined compliance with 3. Draft of diving rules and follow up system for complaints regulations for marine park protection within ACMIC improved Outcome 2: ACMIC s management of diving and terrestrial tourism to reduce physical damage to the marine and terrestrial ecosystems improved Outcome 3: Pigs eradicated and other key invasive species controlled to allow restoration of native species populations and ecological processes Outcome 4: Financial instruments developed to generate revenues to sustain ongoing conservation operations and provide economic incentives to 1. Draft of an ecotourism and management plan for the park 2. Infrastructure plans designed (trails and buildings) 1. Workshop with experts to define policies 2. Diagnosis of species of flora introduced for the preparation of a control proposal 1. Diagnosis of legislation in force in terms of financial management by State-private sectors 2. Training workshop on fundraising for staff members of ACMIC and FAICO. 3. Communications strategy prepared. 7

8 promote sustainable us of the Island s natural resources Outcome 5: Relevant policy and legislation to create a functioning and effective enabling environment for ACMIC necessary to support Outcome 1-3 reformed. 1. Draft of document that opposes the modification of Article 9 of the Fishing and Aquaculture Law which forbids fishing activities within the National Parks. (NGOs, directors of other conservation areas, legislative and governmental sector) 8

9 Rating of Project Implementation 2005 Rating National Project Manager/Coordinator 2006 Comments Rating MS S The Project started in 2005 although it was signed in 2004; hence the planning and analysis started at said time. Due to that, a period of adjustment was necessary to coordinate with all the institutions involved and establish internal controls saw the strengthening of the project and significant progress was made. However, at the end of the year the project was faced with challenges, having lost its Coordinator, and facing a change of its Director, and of UNDP s environmental officer. Government GEF OFP (optional) UNDP Country Office S U The project was subject to delays due to the change of the Coordinator, UNDP Program Officer, and political aspects associated with the assumption of the new government. The previous Coordinator should have concentrated more on substantive and technical aspects, having focused excessively on administrative details. The project received low counterpart support. UNDP Regional Technical Advisor HU HU There have been very limited activities and practically none of the outputs have been achieved to-date. It is questionable whether such limited progress can be explained only by the lack of a project coordinator for the last 5 months as clearly work should have been carried out prior to that for over a year but there is little evidence of much occurring, indicating that the rest of the team, project partners and the government has been relatively inactive with regard to the project activities. There also seems to be a serious problem with the investment of co-financing committed by the French. Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this: Action to be Taken By Whom? By When? Evaluation of the consultants performance PNUD End of 2006 Recruit Project Coordinator PNUD October 2006 Strengthening of project team in addition to a project coordinator, i.e. hiring of an additional technical expert to be considered. UNDP GEF End of

10 IV. Risks 1. Please annex to this report a print out of the corresponding Atlas Risk Tab (please use landscape format and only print the frame). 2. For any risks identified as critical please copy the following information from Atlas: Risk Type Extensive pelagic fishing in and around the protected marine area is significantly reducing fish stocks of globally endangered and economically valuable species and is impacting their important breeding grounds within the ACMIC reducing chances for recuperation and sustainability of the fish populations in the region. Poorly managed diving operations are impacting the coral reef ecosystems and expected increases in activity could retard the natural regrowth of the corals severely damaged by El Nino. Poorly managed land based tourism activities are physically damaging the terrestrial ecosystems and introducing invasive species. Invasive species introduced to the Island have now adapted to the island environment altering species composition and ecological processes on the Island. Flora such as vines and lianas are degrading and changing the structure of important native forest. Fauna such as pigs and rats are acting as predators and altering the food chain. If left both the invasive flora and fauna will continue to out compete native species and further degrade the environment. Date Risk Risk Management Response Identified Description 2004 Modest Proposal to broaden the protected area Inter-institutional alliances to supervise fishing in the surrounding area outside the protected area. Fishing laws prohibit fishing inside the protected area. Improve the technology and equipment used in patrols Modest Elaboration of the plan to control tourists activities. Updating of the management plan 2004 Modest Improve the trails and tourist infrastructure Updating of the management plan Tourist guidance and education upon arrival 2004 Substantial A definition of the control policies for invading mammals and flora is on-going. 10

11 11

12 V. Adjustments to Project Strategy Please report any adjustments made to the project strategy, as reflected in the logical framework matrix, since the Project Document signature: Change Made to: Yes/ Reason for Change Project Objective Project Outcomes Project Outputs / Activities / Inputs Adjustments to Project Time Frame If the duration of the project, the project work schedule, or the timing of any key events such as project start up, evaluations or closing date, have been adjusted since project approval please explain the changes and the reasons for these changes. Change Expected completion date of the project Reason for Change Despite the project was signed in April 2004, it started until February 2005, almost a year of delay. Therefore it has been extended one year. 12

13 VI. Financial Information Please present all financial values in US$ millions to 2 decimal places only (e.g. $3,502,000 should be written as $3.50m) Name of Partner or Contributor (including the Private Sector) GEF Contribution Cash Cofinancing UNDP Managed UNDP (TRAC) (add rows as necessary) Cash Cofinancing Partner Managed (add rows as necessary) In-Kind Cofinancing (add rows as necessary) Total Cofinancing Total for Project Nature of Contributor 1 Amount used in Project Preparation (PDF A, B) Amount committed in Project Document 2 Additional amounts committed after Project Document finalization 11 Estimated Total Disbursement to 30 June 2006 GEF UN Agency Expected Total Disbursement by end of project 1 Specify if: UN Agency, other Multilateral, Bilateral Donor, Regional Development Bank (RDB), National Government, Local Government, NGO, Private Sector, Other. 2 Committed amounts are those shown in the approved Project Document. These may be zero in the case of new leveraged project partners. 13

14 Comments Please explain any significant changes in project financing since Project Document signature, or differences between the anticipated and actual rates of disbursement: 14

15 VII. Additional Financial Instruments used in the Project This section only needs to be completed if the project provides funds to any Financial Instruments such as: Trust Funds, Sinking Funds, Revolving Funds, Partial Credit Risk Guarantees, Microfinance services, Leasing or Insurance mechanisms. If this project does not use any Additional Financial Instruments skip this and go to Section VIII. N/A Financial Instrument Financial Institution Responsible for Management Basis for Selection of Financial Institution For Each Financial Instrument please complete the following two tables: Name of Financial Instrument: Source of Funds (add rows for each source) Funds Committed in Project Document Amount Disbursed to Date Issues or Comments Rating of Performance of Financial Instrument 3 National Project Manager/Coordinator Government GEF OFP UNDP Country Office UNDP Regional Technical Advisor Overall Rating 2006 Rating Comments 3 For ratings, use only: HS - Highly Satisfactory; S Satisfactory; MS Marginally Satisfactory; MU - Marginally Unsatisfactory; U Unsatisfactory; HU Highly Unsatisfactory. 15

16 Action Plan to Address Marginally Unsatisfactory, Unsatisfactory or Highly Unsatisfactory Rating Where a project has received a rating of MU, U or HU describe the actions to be taken to address this: Action to be Taken By Whom? By When? End of Project Situation What is to happen to any funds remaining in the Financial Instrument at the end of the project? 16

17 VIII. Procurement Data te: For projects or project components executed by UNOPS this section must not be filled in - data will be provided by UNOPS headquarters. Please report the US$ value (in Thousands, e.g. 70,000 = 70) of UNDP/GEF Payments made to GEF Donor Countries for Procurement. Please enter Project expenditure accumulated from project start up to the date of this report into the matrix against the donor country supplying the personnel, sub-contract, equipment and training to the project. Please report only on contracts over US$ 2,000. Supplying Donor Country Personnel (US$ thousands) Sub-contracts (US$ thousands) Equipment (US$ thousands) Training (US$ thousands) Total (US$ thousands) Total 17

18 IX. Lessons Are there any lessons from this project that could benefit the design and implementation of other GEFfunded projects? Please list up to three and indicate which one/s could be worth developing into case studies of good/bad practice. i) ii) iii) 18

19 X. Project Contribution to GEF Strategic Targets in Biodiversity For all Projects: Please answer all questions BD1: Protected Areas Have any new protected areas been established as a result of this project? (if any) Has the project resulted in any changes to the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment of protected areas? Has the project raised awareness or knowledge about protected areas in people beyond the project team? Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates concerning protected areas How many protected areas already have improved management capacity as a result of this project? Have any new financial mechanisms for protected areas (such as user fees, tourist taxes, payments for environmental services, etc) been created, or existing mechanisms strengthened as a result of this project? Has the project improved relationships between protected areas and local communities? Has the project worked with Indigenous communities? Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? Has the project assessed the carbon benefits of the protected areas with which it is working? Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination? State: Yes, or In- Progress N/A In progress In progress In progress In progress In progress Additional tes If yes, name these and state the area of each (hectares): Tourism regulations in progress for hiking and scuba diving in Coco s Island Project team, fishing communities, tourism enterprises, national personnel, local people Management proposal for introduced species in the area If yes, name these and state the area of each (hectares): If yes, list these: Better relationships with fishing communities in Puntarenas and Golfito If yes, name the groups and what was done: If yes, what? If yes, state number of tonnes. A communication strategy has been designed. 19

20 Please answer all questions BD2: Spatial Mainstreaming: Has the project resulted in any changes in the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment so that biodiversity is better addressed in the political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community? Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates so that biodiversity is better addressed in the political and spatial planning for an area such as a whole country, province, district or community? Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination? BD2: Sectoral Mainstreaming: Has the project resulted in any changes in the policy, legislative, or regulatory environment so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.? Has the project resulted in any changes in institutional arrangements and mandates so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.? Has the project resulted in any changes in practices so that biodiversity is better addressed in a particular government sector such as forestry, fisheries, mining, tourism, agriculture, etc.? Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? State: Yes, or In- Progress In progress In progress In progress Additional tes If yes, what is the area covered? (ha) List the changes that have been made? If yes, what is the area covered? (ha) List the changes that have been made? If yes, what? If yes, what other spatial governments (provinces, districts, etc) have so far adopted approaches promoted by the project, and over what area (ha)? We are coordinating with governmental institutions, particularly with MOPT, INCOPESCA, and SNG to change fishing and tourism regulations We are coordinating with governmental institutions particularly with MOPT, INCOPESCA, and SNG to change fishing and tourism regulations We are coordinating with governmental institutions, particularly with MOPT, INCOPESCA, SNG, and fishermen to change fishing and tourism regulations If yes, what? 20

21 Please answer all questions Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination? BD2: Market Mainstreaming: Has the project resulted in any market changes such that they encourage more biodiversity friendly (conservation or sustainable use) practice? Has the project improved the markets or profitability for any biodiversity or biodiversity based products? Has the project resulted in certification or certification systems for any products? Has the project increased the level of sustainable use of any species, races or groups of species or races? Has the project resulted in an improvement in the level of sustainable use of particular areas? Has the projects increased the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of BD? Has the project involved Indigenous communities? Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination? State: Yes, or In- Progress Yes Additional tes A communication strategy has been designed If yes, identify the market (e.g. orchard grown fruit), the incentive system (e.g. higher prices for certified biodiversity friendly fruit), the biodiversity, and how it is affected (e.g. fruit tree pollinators not killed by pesticides). If yes, list the products (e.g. tourism) and the biodiversity (e.g. coral reefs) on which they are based. Also comment on the implications for conservation and sustainable use. If yes, list products being certified: e.g. timber, coffee, etc If yes, list the species, races or groups: e.g. medicinal plants, wild rice relatives, Prunus africana. If yes, what is the area over which sustainable use has been improved (ha)? Explain how this was achieved If yes, list the actions being taken: e.g. changing policy, changing regulations, training communities, raising awareness, etc? If yes, name the groups and how they were involved: If yes, what? If yes, over what area (ha), or markets have the approaches disseminated by the project been replicated so far? BD2: Organization or Business Mainstreaming Has the project resulted in any changes in the practices or behaviour of organizations or businesses such that biodiversity is better addressed? Do these changes affect the business efficiency of the organization in any way? Have these changes been imposed by legal or regulatory means? N/A If yes, list the organizations or businesses and list the changes applicable to each If yes, describe the costs and benefits in financial terms to each organization listed. N/A If yes, describe the legal, regulatory or enforcement changes that brought these about. Have these changes been driven by N/A If yes, describe the market forces which have caused 21

22 Please answer all questions market considerations in any way? Have these changes been made as a consequence of decisions regarding corporate environmental responsibility. Were there any other causes of these changes in practice or behaviour? Has the project taken any measures associated with adaptation to climate change? Does the project have a budget for activities related to dissemination? BD4: Lessons learning, dissemination, uptake Has the project compiled any lessons or good practices? Does the project have any demonstrations of good practice in place? Have any of the lessons or demonstrations from the project been adopted elsewhere? State: Yes, or In- Progress N/A N/A N/A N/A Additional tes these changes. If yes, what caused these shifts in organizational or corporate philosophy? If yes, describe them. If yes, what? If yes, how many other organizations or businesses have so far adopted any of the practices promoted by the project? If yes, list the subjects of these and attach these to the PIR report. If yes, list the subjects of these. If yes, list the subjects of these and where they have been adopted. Explain any actions taken by the project to assist in this. For BD3: Biosafety Projects Only Answer all applicable questions Has the project resulted in the enactment of any legislation affecting biosafety? Has the project helped put in place any institutional arrangements to address biosafety? Has the project helped put in place a national biosafety framework? Has the project helped to launch the implementation of the national biosafety framework? State: Yes, or In- Progress If yes, explain If yes, explain If yes, explain Additional tes 22

23 23

24 24