Gef-iw5 etps mangroves

W.Project Assumptions

External factors beyond the control of the project and its partners, which can potentially influence its implementation and success, are considered in Table 4.

Table : Project Assumptions
Project Outcome	Key Assumptions
Outcome 1.1.: Regional CPPS Mangrove Strategy approved.	An agile approval process between member countries for the regional plan to facilitate implementation during the project (please see the timeframe outlined in Section 4D). Continued positive interest from the ETPS Countries.
Outcome 1.2.: Costa Rica part of CPPS-Mangrove initiative.	Costa Rica through its national agencies can act as a full technical associate and beneficiary without being a subscribing member of the CPPS. Costa Rica authorities MINAE and SINAC can integrate the CPPS Mangrove Plan with the complementary Ramsar Mangrove and Coral strategy in coordination with their ongoing 2014-19 #4966 GEF-PNUD grant for wetland conservation.
Outcome 1.3.: Policy makers & managers with tools & improved capacity.	Authorities have the flexibility (timetabling around existing commitments), stability and staffing to take advantage of the tools, trans-boundary interchanges and materials generated by the project if well planned and advised in advance. Any international travel for government functionaries is approved by each authority.
Outcome 2.1.: At least 2 updated ETPS country National Mangrove Action Plans.	At least two opportunities exist where the project can contribute to national planning.
Outcome 2.2.: At least 2 ETPS countries establish stronger regulations and incentives.	At least two countries have the resources and processes underway or intention to establish stronger or improved regulations which coincide with collaborative project actions and/or generation of relevant information.
Outcome 3.1.: At least 2 mangrove ecosystems benefit from project informed improved site level planning.	The timeframe for approval of site level management plans coincides with the 2015-2017 project work and activities planned with stakeholders at each ETPS demonstration site.
Outcome 3.2.: Economic evaluation tools and methodologies tested in at least 2 ETPS countries at demonstration sites.	Base-line work in the Blue Forest project which supports testing of methodologies is sufficiently advance for testing in the two ETPS sites selected (Gulf of Nicoya, Costa Rica; Gulf of Guayaquil, Ecuador).
Outcome 3.3.: Stakeholder outreach and capacity building.	Project stakeholders are available and interested, ensuring participation. Access to local communities is endorsed and facilitated by the relevant country authorities.
Outcome 3.4.: At least 2 demonstration projects successfully implemented in at least 2 sites.	Interest exists with stakeholders and local communities to participate and that social and environmental conditions are appropriate for implementation (e.g. El Niño impacts during fisheries enhancement and re-seeding projects, domestic security issues complicate access to project areas etc.). Following communications with the MADS Colombian authority we also assume that the engagement process for Colombian Afro-descendant communities is analogous to that considered for local communities in the other regions (and not as that normally developed for Indigenous Peoples) and that the project IPP reflect this distinction.

X.Project Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Four potential risks associated with the project, were identified for both operational and technical considerations and a rating estimated for each risk on a 3-point scale (low, moderate, high) (Table 5).

Table : Project Risk Assessment and Mitigation Planning
Risks	Potentially affected project outcomes	Rating (Low, Medium, High)	Risk Mitigation Measures
Strong climate variability during project lifetime (e.g. ENSO), resulting in changed/increased pressures on mangrove forests.	Under strong ENSO conditions activities in the field sites involving demonstration projects and the testing of Blue Carbon methodologies (Component 3) may be affected over 6-18 month periods.	Medium	ENSO is an example of a regional phenomenon that can provide both benefits and also generate considerable impacts. Demo projects should be adapted to reduce logistic issues and use the opportunity to focus on on-the-ground risk reduction at sites and reinforce the case for improved planning measures in the short-term.
Weak institutional capacities for planning, management and governance of targeted mangrove forest areas	This impacts the ability of the project to support stakeholders in a timely and effective and probably cost-effective manner and as such would limit the effectiveness of any on-the-ground conservation incentives that rely directly or indirectly on governance mechanisms.	Medium	The risk will be reduced by working with and strengthening several institutions, from the national governments to local levels, thereby minimizing dependence on any one institution. The project will invest in addressing key capacity gaps as part of the base-line characterizations for national policy in Output 2.2.1.
Limited capacity, commitment and/or governance among local people in target mangrove forest areas.	A lack of local coordination and interest in any proposed conservation and livelihood incentive for mangroves directly impacts demonstration projects and training at the local level (Component #3).	Medium	Starting with the design phase, the project will work in a participatory manner with local communities to discuss and define the strategies to be implemented in the mangrove forest areas, in order to maximize the likelihood of ownership and uptake and help reduce this risk.
Changes in some institutions providing co-financing could lead to their inability to do so	Co-financing towards national policy and site level conservation incentives helps amplify the effectiveness of those project Outputs.	Low	Much of the co-financing for this project has already been secured. This risk will be further mitigated as much as possible by working with co-financing partners through the design phase to secure their involvement and investment and have some flexibility if any one donor is affected.
Political willingness in ETPS countries.	Priority changes in public policies or personnel changes may affect project performance	Medium	Working closely with middle managers will help ensure continuity in project implementation, as well as the timely communication with upper management if there is staff turnover or political changes in governance. CI national offices have developed standing relationships with government offices to encourage healthy dialogue with policy makers in favor of appropriate project actions. Given election took place in ¾ ETPS countries in 2014 and we are currently working in building our work with the new administrations, we anticipate no major shift of priorities during the full project implementation phase.