Component 1: Regional mangrove strategy development and implementation
|
Outcome 1.1.:
The four ETPS countries adopt and advance the regional strategy for the conservation of mangroves elaborated by the Comisión Permanente del Pacífico Sur (Permanent Commission for the South Pacific or CPPS) to implement key mangrove conservation and restoration measures identified in this project by Y2Q4.
Outcome Indicator 1.1.:
A regional strategy approved by and published for the appropriate authorities of the four ETPS countries by Y2Q1.
|
Base-Line 1.1.:
The four ETPS countries do not share a common strategy for mangrove conservation.
Efforts are underway to evaluate the status and value of mangrove ecosystems in each ETPS country, and frame national mangrove conservation in the context of international conventions and commitments such as UNFCCC and CBD. These efforts still remain relatively isolated endeavors often missing the science to action technical justification or scale of effect to consider upstream ridge-to-reef processes such as watershed management that influence sites.
Despite increasing global and national awareness of the importance of mangrove forested areas in the ETPS region (e.g. significant carbon sequestration, multiple ecological goods and services provided to local and national communities), deforestation remains at an estimated 1-2%/ year across the region.
|
Target 1.1.:
CPPS within its' regional planning for the South Pacific Nations develops a Regional Open Mangrove Initiative Plan. The Plan is supported and validated by an international technical working group convened by CPPS, and is approved, published and implemented through member country Action Plans as part of their national mangrove strategy.
In the mid-term the region-wide implementation of the Plan promotes coordinated actions, cross-learning, an increase in awareness for mangrove sustainable development and advances policy development. Concepts within the regional plan such as EBM ridge-to-reef planning and trans-learning for the conservation and restoration of mangrove ecosystem services and supported sustainable societies are considered where relevant in the development of new national policy.
In the long-term policy changes reinforce the benefits of private and/or community led conservation programs and spatial planning measures that reduce mangrove degradation and reduce or reverse deforestation trends. As a result risk to threatened mangrove biodiversity is reduced, climate change mitigation afforded through carbon sequestration improves and natural coastal defenses are strengthened.
|
Output 1.1.1.:
A Mangrove Technical Working Group/network comprised of leading mangrove experts is created within CPPS to advise on the completion of the regional strategy for the conservation of mangrove.
Output Indicator 1.1.1.:
A Mangrove Technical Working Group is convened by Y1Q3 as part of the CPPS Operating Plan with a 2015-2017+ commitment.
Output 1.1.2.:
At least two meetings of a Mangrove Technical Working Group are held to contribute to regional strategy for the conservation of mangrove.
Output Indicator 1.1.2.:
# Technical Working Group Meetings generating recommendations towards improved regional mangrove conservation strategy by Y2Q2.
Output 1.1.3.:
The updated regional strategy for the conservation of mangroves is ratified by Ministerial level authorities and published.
Output Indicator 1.1.3.:
# ETPS country governments that officially endorse a regional strategy compatible with their National Planning Instruments and policies by Y2Q1.
|
Outcome 1.2.:
Costa Rica participates in the development of the regional strategy for the conservation of the mangroves via an agreement as a Cooperating Non-Party to the CPPS by Y1Q3.
Outcome Indicator 1.2.:
Costa Rica is an active participating member of the CPPS Open Initiative for Mangrove Conservation and Sustainable Development.
|
Base-Line 1.2.:
Costa Rica is not a participating member of the CPPS commission under which the project regional framework is being developed.
Costa Rica has national mangrove initiatives underway of relevance to the regional project (e.g. MINAE and SINAC 2014-19 #4966 GEF-PNUD grant for wetland conservation).
|
Target 1.2.:
Costa Rica becomes a full participating member of the Regional Mangrove Action Plan technical forum and Steering Committee, actively contributing to and benefiting from, knowledge sharing/ transfer and conservation incentives afforded by the Ramsar Mangrove and Coral Strategy and CPPS Open Mangrove Initiative for Conservation and sustainable development.
The resulting regional strategy is more robust, while being coherent between ETPS countries, strategies for designated Ramsar sites and effective in meeting international biodiversity commitments. The ETPS countries mutually benefit from counterpart financing, complementary actions and new opportunities leveraged during regional interchanges.
|
Output 1.2.1.:
MOU signed between CPPS and Costa Rica ratifying Costa Rica’s participation in the regional strategy for the conservation of mangroves as a Cooperating Non-Party by Y1Q3.
Output Indicator 1.2.1.:
CPPS - Costa Rica MOU (or legally equivalent documentation) signed with CPPS before Y1Q3.
|
Outcome 1.3.:
Policy makers and national mangrove managers from at least three countries have the tools and capacity to strengthen the implementation of the regional mangrove strategy.
Outcome Indicator 1.3.:
# of countries that have tools generated by the project that assist and inform integrated regional and national planning (by Y2Q4).
|
Base-Line 1.3.:
Decision makers responsible for mangrove conservation and sustainable development are very receptive to sound technical and scientific support that helps consolidate coordinated actions in the region.
The ETPS mangrove coastal areas are managed under different national regimes that reflect their development history. The existing resources available to policy makers across the region address base-line understanding, public awareness, prioritization methods, inter-sector organization, finance mechanisms and ordination of resource use.
Materials and tools produced directly in support of policy improvements are mostly specific to each country and are limited in the thematic areas of climate change and blue forest technologies, policy for mangrove restoration, territorial ridge-to-reef planning and environmental education.
|
Target 1.3.:
Policy makers and mangrove resource managers benefit from capacity building via the project in at least 3 countries. They benefit from access to the technical advice and tools necessary to rationalize and implement improvements in national mangrove related policy and address policy gaps. This encourages a progressive regional agenda that improves overall mangrove health in the ETPS region.
A practical shared reference base is available to decision makers beyond the lifetime of the project. Outreach, cross-learning opportunities and knowledge sharing during the project consolidates mangrove conservation "know-how" across the ETPS region.
|
Output 1.3.1.:
At least two ETPS trans-boundary learning and cooperation exchanges between project countries and at least one international exchange with other countries with similar mangrove conservation challenges completed by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 1.3.1.:
# of thought leaders trained per country actively working in aspects of mangrove policy and resource planning by Y2Q4.
Output 1.3.2.:
Communication products on mangrove conservation (policy, regulations, field implementation and other related issues) will be completed and made available to policy makers and stakeholders by Y1Q3.
Output Indicator 1.3.2.:
% completion of communication products (as described in Section 4B) by Y1Q3.
|
Component 2: National mangrove action plans and policy strengthening.
|
Outcome 2.1.:
At least two ETPS countries have updated national mangrove action plans in line with the regional strategy that addresses pressure on mangroves from sources across the ridge-to-reef (watershed) scale by Y2Q4.
Outcome Indicator 2.1.:
# of ETPS country updated national plans supported by the regional mangrove strategy.
|
Base-Line 2.1.:
In general ecosystem based management that integrates upstream processes such as watershed management and other ridge-to-reef teleconnections are not traditionally represented in national planning for mangroves. Instead, spatial planning is often undertaken by different agencies and tailored to the needs of the different local populated centers/ divisions.
Each ETPS country is working to develop their mangrove and wetland strategies.
Costa Rica: Developing a wetland national strategy into 2017 which includes an updated inventory of national mangrove areas.
Panama: Developing a national mangrove strategy which has yet to be implemented and adjusted in the context of a new Environment Ministry in 2015.
Colombia: Already prohibits the deforestation of mangrove resources and has granted certain concessionary rights to communities but has not yet developed a specific national mangrove action plan.
Ecuador: Currently drafting a first national mangrove action plan. MAE has implemented a successful concession program known as "sociomanglares" which would benefit from a viable long term financing mechanism.
|
Target 2.1.:
National regulations and national mangrove action plans are improved and made consistent with the regional mangrove strategy, such that priority Pacific mangroves are put under an improved policy conducive to more effective on-the-ground conservation by Y2Q4.
Costa Rica incorporates ridge-to-reef processes as relevant upstream watershed processes into their wetland conservation strategy.
Panama ANAM and ARAP authorities combine into a new ministry where new competencies are established that improve effective wetland policy development.
Colombia: Project inputs support National law 1450 to be established into 2015 towards improved mangrove conservation strategies.
Ecuador: The regional action plan contributes to the application of the Ecuador National Plan for Well-Being (Buen vivir).
|
Output 2.1.1.:
Updated national mangrove action plans are formally ratified in at least two ETPS countries.
Output Indicator 2.1.1.:
# of updated and ratified national mangrove action plans (and in development) by Y2Q4.
|
Outcome 2.2.:
At least two ETPS countries have passed stronger regulations and incentives conducive to mangrove conservation.
Outcome Indicator 2.2.:
# of countries with stronger regulations or incentives that improve mangrove conservation underway and established at the national level by Y2Q4.
|
Base-Line 2.2.:
Existing regulations and their effective implementation vary between ETPS country:
Costa Rica: Forest Law 7575 (1996) outlawed all mangrove extraction and suspended all licensing for additional shrimp aquaculture, but does not yet consider land-use practice affecting upstream watershed processes. Uses are restricted to tourism, education and investigation complicating management in historically fished areas.
Panamá: General Environmental Law No. 41 (1998) and recent resolutions (2008) require special permits with fines for any use that could affect mangroves. Unfortunately urban development approved in 2011 resulted in the destruction of extensive mangrove areas, including in Ramsar listed wetlands.
Colombia: Amended Resolution 1602 (1996) specifically outlaws mangrove destruction in all national provinces and require licenses for any activities that could negatively affect mangroves. Practical application though is limited across high poverty communities along the Pacific coast where deforestation rates are highest. Law 1450 (2011) under the National Development Plan later prohibited mining and aquaculture industries in mangrove systems. A further mangrove specific resolution is planned by MADS for 2015.
Ecuador: Resolution 56 establishes a fine of $89,273 USD per hectare for mangrove destruction. Concessions agreements across ~50K ha of mangrove have been granted to local communities over the last 5 years.
|
Target 2.2.:
National threat assessment exercises and trans-boundary knowledge exchanges lead to more effective regulations governing ridge-to-reef processes impacting mangrove areas in at least two of the ETPS countries. Changes in policy and national sustainable development programs act to reduce the likelihood of continued mangrove degradation, encouraging instead reforestation.
Positive effects of integrated ridge-to-reef planning propagate to local scales. This provides more effective nursery habitat, food security, water quality and coastal defenses are bolstered. Communities within and around the resource shift towards sustainable mangrove based livelihoods with social and economic benefits that improve community well-being.
Targets for national planning discussed with local authorities during the PPG will be confirmed during project start-up. These included:
-
Clarified tenure and use rights for local communities;
-
Improved upstream watershed management;
-
Stricter pollution controls;
-
Mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments;
-
Mangrove climate adaptation criteria in national plans;
-
National incentive schemes for effective management;
-
A financial sustainability mechanism for concession programs;
-
Strengthening of marine protected networks and biological corridors;
-
More stringent fines for illegal mangrove destruction.
|
Output 2.2.1:
A national mangrove policy and threat assessment for each ETPS country to orient economic valuation work, informs policy gaps, and identifies outreach needs and priorities in each ETPS country, completed by Y1Q4.
Output Indicator 2.2.1.:
# of ETPS countries with an updated (post PPG) mangrove base-line, national policy and threat assessment by Y1Q4.
Output 2.2.2.:
Legislation passed to strengthen the protection of mangroves in at least two ETPS countries completed by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 2.2.2.:
# of new policies containing elements attributable to the project national assessment exercises.
|
Component 3: Local conservation action.
|
Outcome 3.1.:
At least two key mangrove ecosystems have updated management plans and/or new local development plans consistent with updated national and regional strategies, taking into account the results of economic valuation studies from this and related projects and building on increased national capacity and support to protect mangroves in a comprehensive ridge-to-reef context by Y2Q4.
Outcome Indicator 3.1.:
# of site level management or local development plans generated with stakeholders directly and indirectly as a result of project developments.
|
Base-Line 3.1.:
The demonstration sites in this project are adjacent to communities for which management plans are being developed or improved:
Chira, Gulf of Nicoya (Costa Rica)
Management actions are largely organized by private enterprises (women's collectives within the community). A Responsible Fishing Marine Area was designated and adopted by the Palito community Asopecupachi Cooperative in 2012.
David, Gulf of Chiriquí (Panamá);
CI-Panama has been working in consultation with local authorities and stakeholders since 2007 towards an eventual management plan in David, and more recently (2013+) in Montijo.
Uramba Bahía Malaga (Colombia);
A local management plan was developed in 2012 with the community council of Bazán Bocana by MADS and the CVC with support from Marviva for a Special Nature Reserve covering 500 ha of bay mangroves.
El Morro, Gulf of Guayaquil (Ecuador);
A management plan has been in development since 2008 in revision by MAE with financing and technical oversight from CI-Ecuador.
|
Target 3.1.:
Local policy and management plans are strengthened in each site and made consistent with national plans and the regional mangrove strategy in at least two of the local sites of Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panama), Bahia Malaga (Colombia) and/or El Morro (Ecuador) that have field conservation measures underway to reduce degradation and increase mangrove coverage through restoration efforts.
Targets for local planning discussed with authorities during the PPG will be confirmed during project start-up. Examples included:
-
Mangrove climate adaptation criteria in local plans (David, Panama);
-
Inter-institutional arrangements that regularize no-take nursery areas zoned by community councils (Bahia Malaga, Colombia);
-
Consolidate new concession agreements within management plans (El Morro, Ecuador).
|
Output 3.1.1.:
At least two local management plans and/or local development plans for priority mangrove sites are formally ratified by local authorities by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 3.1.1.:
# of improved site level management plans or local development plans in effect by Y2Q4 and/or % completion.
|
Outcome 3.2.:
Economic evaluation tools and methodologies developed through the GEF-UNEP Blue Forests and other related projects are tested in at least two ETPS countries during their development phases to maximize applicability to policy and management at local to national scales by Y2Q3.
Outcome Indicator 3.2.:
# of GEF-UNEP Blue Forests method and/or analogous economic evaluations and tools developed and presented to project stakeholders
|
Base-Line 3.2.:
The GEF-UNEP Blue Forests initiative is currently underway to develop marine carbon accounting methodologies and ecosystem services evaluations that help quantify carbon credit as a potential management as well as financing tool.
The initiative that ran from 2010-2014 envisaged small scale interventions at pilot sites to help resource managers better represent the often underestimated value of mangrove systems (e.g. for carbon and emissions scenarios, fisheries enhancement zones etc.) in national policies. This would better reflect their latent resource potential in emerging economies such as climate change, conservation, biodiversity and sustainable development for tourism etc.
Both Costa Rica (Cifuentes et al, 2014), and Ecuador (Hamilton & Lovette, 2015) have undertaken recent carbon assessments/ valuation estimating and correcting mangrove loss estimations from the 1960s onwards. STRI working with the Carnegie Institute of science have developed LIDAR based methods for a first high fidelity carbon map for Panama (2013). Colombia has some information for the Caribbean coast, but requires more support in carbon technologies and valuation of ecosystem goods and services.
|
Target 3.2.:
The GEF-UNEP Blue Forest Project and WAVES methodology is successfully applied and evaluated in the ETPS country demonstration sites of Ecuador (Gulf of Guayaquil) and Costa Rica (Gulf of Nicoya).
This will provide important economic evaluation tools and base-line reference data of direct relevance for both local resource managers and national planning agencies, helping to value the resource and justify steps in national policy revisions and improved site level management (e.g. creation of new mangrove concessions etc.).
A knowledge sharing platform is created drawing upon experiences and examples across the project, and integrated between the outreach platforms of each project partner.
The results of the project are widely communicated in national, regional and global conservation, science, policy and related fora.
|
Output 3.2.1.:
Final report on the economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services provided by mangroves in at least two project sites, including a) fisheries, b) nature-based tourism, c) coastal protection, d) maintaining water quality and bioremediation, and e) carbon storage completed by Y2Q1.
Output Indicator 3.2.1.:
# of completed site studies presented to stakeholders by Y2Q1.
Output 3.2.2:
Summary outreach document and associated strategy for making it most relevant to decision-makers on the methodology(ies) and toolkit(s) assessed and used to guide the implementation and policy application of economic valuation of mangrove ecosystem services that include cost-benefit analyses of alternative management options, based on existing initiatives including the GEF-UNEP Blue Forest project and WAVES, completed by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 3.2.2.:
% completion and presentation of outreach document with decision support strategy presented to ETPS decision makers by Y2Q4.
Output 3.2.3.:
Mangrove valuation, policy and development planning outcomes and field conservation communicated broadly, including through: distribution of communications materials; an interactive knowledge-sharing platform; presentation in at least three national, regional and global conservation, science, policy and related fora (e.g.: Ramsar, CBD, IMPAC, Blue Carbon Working Group, ITTO); participating in the IWLearn mechanism (including allocation of 1% of project budget for this purpose), and presentation to policy makers in other mangrove relevant countries by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 3.2.3.:
# of outreach and communication media/ platforms/ packages generated, aimed at national, regional and global mangrove conservation, science and policy fora by Y2Q4.
|
Outcome 3.3.:
Outreach and capacity building for at least 30 local policymakers and stakeholders finalized by Y2Q4.
Outcome Indicator 3.3.:
# policymakers and stakeholders trained per ETPS country.
|
Base-Line 3.3.:
The project partners do not have existing outreach and training underway for mangrove conservation at the selected project sites.
|
Target 3.3.:
Local policy makers and stakeholders receive directed training in field conservation skills and mangrove restoration scenarios.
Stakeholders are as a result better equipped to develop local policy and action plans, run in-house threat assessments and evaluate their resource use scenarios. This encourages informed decisions when developing alternatives that favor the sustainable use and recovery of their mangrove resources.
|
Output 3.3.1.:
At least two training events are conducted per ETPS country with at least 15 participants each to build skills relating to field conservation measures and restoration of mangroves by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 3.3.1.:
# of events and training hours received per stakeholder in each ETPS country by Y2Q4.
|
Outcome 3.4.:
At least two demonstration projects that provide incentives and/or that create business opportunities associated with the conservation and sustainable use of mangroves initiated in at least two selected sites by Y2Q4.
Outcome Indicator 3.4.:
# of demonstration projects successfully implemented in high priority mangrove conservation areas.
|
Base-Line 3.4.:
The project partners do not have existing demonstration projects for mangrove sustainable use and conservation at the selected project sites.
|
Target 3.4.:
The country level exchange of experiences and technical fora developed in the project (e.g. the ecosystem services evaluations, Blue Forests methodologies etc.) stimulate at least 2 demonstration projects designed to promote the conservation and sustainable use of mangrove resources. At least two sites are selected for these projects on the basis of feasibility for implementation and their potential return for conservation and associated societies.
Successful examples improve the grass-roots advocacy for sustainable livelihoods locally and potentially amplify the benefits of similar practices when adapted to adjacent areas and regions. A list of potential demonstration projects considered for each of the four local sites is given in Section 4B.
|
Output 3.4.1.:
Local associations in at least two sites actively participate and commit to demonstration projects by Y1Q4.
Output Indicator 3.4.1.:
MOUs with local associations that outline commitments to participate in mangrove conservation and restoration activities signed by Y1Q3.
Output 3.4.2.:
Local stakeholders participating in demonstration projects increased by 20% over the project start-up baseline by Y2Q4.
Output Indicator 3.4.2.:
% increase in number of stakeholders (and/or their time invested) for each demonstration project between Y1Q4 and Y2Q4.
|
