Ecosystem Profile

THE CARIBBEAN ISLANDS
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTTechnical Summary

FINAL VERSION
December 2019

Prepared by:

Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI)
in collaboration with:

BirdLife International
and with technical support from:International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)New York Botanical Garden (NYBG)
Drafted by the ecosystem profiling team:Nicole A. Brown, CANARIDavid Díaz, BirdLife International
Isadora Angarita, BirdLife International
Natalie Boodram, CANARI
Gillian Bunting, BirdLife International
Anna Cadiz Hadeed, CANARI
Frédérique Fardin, CANARIDavid Wege, BirdLife Internationalwith support from:

Leida Buglass, CANARI
Ronald Cadémus, CANARI
Mike Evans, BirdLife International
Brian Bloom, NYBG
Craig Hilton-Taylor, IUCN
Sixto Incháustegui, Consultant
Dara-Marie Raggay, CANARI
under the supervision of:Michele Zador, Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund1

INTRODUCTION

The Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is one of 36 biodiversity hotspots in the world.
Biodiversity hotspots hold least 1,500 plant species found nowhere else and have lost at least 70
percent of their original habitat extent (Mittermeier et al. 2004). The island geography and complex
geology of the Caribbean has created unique habitats and high species diversity, and these islands haveamong the highest number of globally threatened species of any hotspot in the world. Between October2010 and July 2016, the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) invested $6.9 million towards
safeguarding the Caribbean’s biodiversity and preventing extinctions. In June 2016, the CEPF Donor
Council selected the Caribbean Islands for reinvestment, to build on gains made during the initial phaseof investment and make further progess with conserving the hotspot’s rich biodiversity.
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot comprises more than 7,000 islands, islets, reefs and cays with a landarea of 230,000 km2 scattered across 4 million km2 of sea (Figure 1.1). The hotspot takes in the 30
biologically and culturally diverse nations and territories, among which 11 are eligible for CEPF
support: Antigua and Barbuda; the Bahamas; Barbados; Dominica; the Dominican Republic; Grenada;
Haiti; Jamaica; Saint Lucia; St. Kitts and Nevis; and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.
Figure 1.1 The Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot

3

2

BACKGROUNDThis ecosystem profile and the five-year investment strategy for the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity
Hotspot it contains were developed by the Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) and
BirdLife International, with technical support from the International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN) and the New York Botanical Garden (NYBG), under the supervision of the CEPF Secretariat.
The ecosystem profile is a situational analysis of the social, environmental, economic and politicalconditions that inform and influence biodiversity conservation efforts in the hotspot. It further defines aniche and strategy for CEPF investment in the Caribbean Islands for a five-year period.

2.1

Preliminary Data Compilation and Analysis

The process to develop the ecosystem profile entailed the compilation of existing data and information
on biodiversity, socio-economic conditions, policy, civil society, threats, climate change and funding,as well as the pre-assessment of the hotspot’s Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). The profiling teamprepared discussion papers based on desk research and interviews with in-country stakeholders.
Supplementary information on civil society was gathered via an online survey in September 2017.

2.2

KBA Assessment

More than 400 sites were analyzed during this ecosystem profile update using the new Global Standard
for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (IUCN 2016).The preliminary list of KBAs took into
account sites from existing initiatives, including: sites those identified previously as KBAs according to
the previous global standard (Langhammer et al. 2007); Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs);
Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites; and protected areas. This list was shared with national experts(electronically and via an interactive ArcGIS Story Map microsite) and discussed during thestakeholder consultations. The KBAs with the highest biological values were later reviewed by national
expert groups and participants in the final regional workshop.

2.3

Stakeholder Consultation

The ecosystem profiling process incorporated regional stakeholder expertise through three national
workshops (in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Jamaica), and an online sub-regional meeting for the
Bahamas and the Eastern Caribbean, national KBA working groups and a final regional consultation in
Jamaica. The process engaged 175 stakeholders from 94 organizations within civil society, government,
the private sector and the donor community.
The draft niche and strategy for investment were reviewed and validated by participants in the regional
consultation to update the ecosystem profile. This regional meeting brought together experts from civilsociety, government, and funding agencies, who were asked to review the document from a regional
perspective.

4

3

INITIAL PHASE OF CEPF INVESTMENT: OVERVIEW AND
LESSONS LEARNED3.1

CEPF Investment Strategy 2010-2016

The initial phase of CEPF investment in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot was guided by anecosystem profile, published in January 2010, which contained an investment strategy with five
strategic directions. The first three strategic directions focused on site-level interventions, corridorlevel interventions and civil society capacity building. The fourth was dedicated to the Regional
Implementation Team (RIT). The fifth strategic direction, which was approved separately by the Donor
Council, provided special emergency support to Haitian civil society to mitigate the effects of thedevastating earthquake that occurred in early 2010.

3.2

Overview of CEPF Investment 2010-2016

The RIT for the Caribbean Islands was established in October 2010 to provide strategic leadership andeffective coordination of CEPF investment in the hotspot. The RIT role for the Caribbean Islands was
performed by CANARI: a regional technical non-profit organization that has been working in theislands of the Caribbean for more than 20 years. The RIT was managed from CANARI’s office in
Trinidad and Tobago, and team members included three local coordinators based in the countries ofhighest priority for CEPF’s investment in the region: the Dominican Republic; Haiti; and Jamaica.
Between January 2011 and March 2015, CEPF and CANARI issued seven calls for proposals,receiving a total of 241 letters of inquiry (LoIs): 149 for large grants and 92 for small grants. Fromamong these LoIs, 77 projects were supported. The RIT deliberately promoted grant opportunities tolocal and regional civil society organizations (CSOs), which received 78 percent of all funding awarded.

3.3

Summary of Impacts

The initial phase of CEPF investment in the Caribbean Islands focused on site-level interventions.
CEPF grantees improved management and protection of 25 KBAs, covering 593,967 hectares in eight
countries, through the development, approval and implementation of participatory protected area
management plans that engaged communities and resource users. CEPF grantees strengthened theorganizational and technical conservation capacities of community groups and park rangers.
Stakeholder committees were established to ensure the active and effective participation of resource
users and communities in decision-making, in collaboration with protected area agencies. Local
communities’ awareness of the importance of biodiversity conservation was raised and their capacity
was built to meaningfully engage in conservation actions and national dialogues.
The initial phase of CEPF investment in the Caribbean Islands supported the creation of eight new
protected areas covering 111,496 hectares in the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. These
included terrestrial and marine national parks, municipal reserves and a private protected area. The
Dominican Republic’s first private protected area was declared, and the procedures required to
implement the existing legal framework for the declaration of private protected areas were developed
and disseminated. Haiti’s first municipal protected area was declared.

5

Climate change adaptation was integrated into protected area planning and implementation actions forthe first time in Jamaica and the Dominican Republic. A climate change risk assessment was integrated
into the Portland Bight and Hellshire Hills sub-area management plans in Jamaica. Similarly, a climatechange adaptation action plan and strategy was included in the management plan for the Dominican
Republic’s Parque Nacional La Humeadora.
Innovative financing mechanisms for biodiversity conservation were developed, including the sale of
the Caribbean’s first forest carbon offsets in a payment for ecosystem services (PES) scheme, whichallows smallholders and cocoa farmers in the Dominican Republic to improve production whilereforesting their plots with native species. Also in the Dominican Republic, an economic valuation ofwater resources to support a participatory PES system was completed, laying the foundation for theestablishment of a water fund for the city of Santo Domingo.
Sustainable livelihoods were strengthened in communities living in and around KBAs, throughdeveloping and promoting crop diversity, forest carbon credits, fruit and vegetable processing,ecotourism and beekeeping. Offering viable economic alternatives is key to reducing human pressure
on critical ecosystems especially in small island developing states where the socio-economic needs offamilies who depend on natural resources for their survival must be taken into account.
CEPF also strengthened the capacity of 58 local and regional Caribbean CSOs through thedevelopment of strategic plans, fundraising plans and financial manuals, communication strategies,
upgraded websites and financial systems. Capacity was built in a range of areas, including project
design and proposal development, monitoring and evaluation, effective environmental communications
and engagement of the private sector. Technical skills were built in sustainable tourism, field datacollection and monitoring, and invasive species eradication and management.
With support from CEPF, grantees built alliances, supported regional networking and consolidated
multi-sectoral partnerships for biodiversity that crossed political jurisdictions and language barriers.
For example, CSOs in the Dominican Republic fostered strategic alliances with local cement andmining private sector companies for conservation actions in Sierra de Bahoruco. In Jamaica, local,
national and international stakeholders came together to mount a campaign to save the Goat Islands
within the Portland Bight Protected Area, which were threatened by a proposed transshipment port.

3.4

Lessons Learned from CEPF Investment 2010-2016

Working in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is complicated and costly due to thearchipelagic geography and differences in language, culture and political systems, just to mention a few
challenges. Lessons learned were monitored throughout the implementation of the initial phase of
CEPF investment. A mid-term assessment was carried out between May and September 2013, and thefindings informed the second half of the investment phase. A final assessment was held in November
2015, with stakeholder consultations in the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Jamaica. Key lessons
learned from these two evaluations that are relevant to future investment in the Caribbean Islands
Hotspot can be summarized as follows:
1. Building a grantee’s organizational capacity in parallel with grant implementation encourages
long-term sustainability of efforts and efficient use of funds.
2. It is important to support planning and capacity building efforts to enable effective conservation
action.
6

3. Fostering strategic partnerships across civil society including with the public and private sector
and other managers and users of natural resources enhances conservation impacts and ensureslong-term conservation goals are met.
4. It is important to support civil society to innovate and test new approaches to conservation,
especially in the face of a changing climate, which demands new responses to emerging
challenges.
5. Coordination with other national and regional initiatives helps ensure a strategic andcoordinated regional programmatic response to supporting civil society’s work in biodiversity
conservation, climate change and sustainable rural livelihoods.
During January-March 2018, an independent evaluation of lessons learned was conducted in relation to
the Caribbean Islands RIT. The objective of the evaluation was to inform investment decisions for the
next phase of CEPF investment in the hotspot, including by documenting challenges and opportunities
encountered by the RIT, while implementing a grants program to engage and strengthen civil society inconserving globally important biodiversity in the social, political and institutional context of thehotspot. The evaluation was undertaken by a team of consultants at Kiunzi SRL, and involved a desk
study, a questionnaire survey of grantees, and interviews with stakeholders. The full report of the
independent evaluation is available on the CEPF website1.
The evaluation concluded that the initial phase of CEPF investment in the Caribbean was overall
relevant, and the objectives set at the beginning of the program were globally reached. However, partof the strategy aimed at guaranteeing the sustainability of the intervention and optimizing its impact
was not implemented in a systematic and consistent manner. Communication, partnerships among
grantees, establishing synergies between the public and private sectors, fund leverage and developing a
regional dimension among the grantees were not prioritized during the initial phase of the program. To
heighten the impact of the program, these aspects of running the program must be redressed to their full
extent in the next phase.
The evaluation also recommended that CEPF provides a regional framework that needs to be enhancedin the case of the Caribbean. The region is fragmented in many aspects, and one of the main challenges
for the next phase will be to build Caribbean awareness. Strong regional links must be establishedwithin the Caribbean civil society, with donors, with the public and private sectors, and with academia
and the media.

1

https://www.cepf.net/sites/default/files/evaluation_of_lessons_learned_caribbean_islands.pdf

7

4
BIOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE OF THE CARIBBEAN ISLAND
BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT
4.1

Introduction

The Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of endemic
biodiversity, resulting from the region’s geography and climate: an archipelago of habitat-rich tropicaland semi-tropical islands tenuously connected to surrounding continents. Dispersal processes from
North, Central and South America, Africa and Europe, climate events, and in situ radiations within theislands have resulted in outstanding plant diversity (WWF and IUCN 1997; Caujapé-Castells 2011;
Nieto-Blázquez et al. 2017). The biotas of these islands share an “oceanic” character marked by arelatively low representation of higher taxa but there is extraordinary diversity within those that arepresent. Vertebrate diversity and endemism in the hotspot are also noteworthy (Mittermeier et al. 2004).

4.2

Geography and Climate

The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is situated on the Caribbean Plate and comprises more than 7,000
islands, islets, reefs and cays with a land area of 230,000 km2 scattered across 4 million km2 of sea.
Island arcs delineate the eastern and northern edges of the Caribbean Sea: a semi-enclosed basin of thewestern Atlantic Ocean between Florida in the north and Venezuela in the south. Some islands, such as
Antigua and Barbados, have relatively flat terrain of non-volcanic origin. Others, like Cuba, Hispaniola
and Jamaica, have rugged, towering mountain ranges. The highest mountain ranges rise to more than
3,000 m above sea level, while low-lying islands reach little more than 50–60 m above sea level.
Climate in the Caribbean is tropical humid but both climate and rainfall vary with elevation, island sizeand ocean currents. The climate is moderated, to some extent, by the prevailing warm, moist tradewinds that blow consistently from the northeast, creating tropical wet forest/semi-desert divisions onmountainous islands. Rainfall distribution is determined by the size, topography and position of theislands in relation to the trade winds. Flat islands receive slightly less rainfall, albeit falling morepredictably. The heaviest rainfall periods are in the middle of May and in September (albeit withtemporal variation across the hotspot), with the “rainy season” coinciding with the summer hurricane
season. Hurricanes develop over the ocean during the mid- to later months of the year.

4.3

Habitats and Ecosystems

Geography, climate and the large geographic expanse of the Caribbean Islands Hotspot have resulted ina diverse range of habitats and ecosystems, which in turn support high levels of species richness.
Fourteen Holdridge life zones and 16 World Wildlife Fund (WWF) ecoregions have been defined in
the hotspot. There are four major terrestrial forest types: tropical/subtropical moist broadleaf forests;
tropical/subtropical dry broadleaf forests; tropical/subtropical coniferous forests; and shrublands andxeric scrub.
In the marine realm, the Caribbean Islands’ shallow marine environment is part of the large marine
ecosystem of the Caribbean Sea, with more than 12,000 marine species reported. There are low
endemism rates compared to terrestrial ecosystems, due to the high degree of connectivity resulting
from currents influence and species migration (Miloslavich et al. 2010). The coastal zone contains
8many productive and biologically complex ecosystems, including beaches, coral reefs, seagrass beds,
mangroves, coastal lagoons and mud bottom communities.

4.4

Species Diversity and Endemicity

The Caribbean Islands Hotspot supports about 11,000 plant species, of which 72 percent are endemic(Acevedo-Rodriguez and Strong 2007). For vertebrates, 96 percent of the 200 amphibian species and82 percent of 602 reptile species in the hotspot are endemic, which is likely due to their low dispersal
rates, in contrast to the more mobile birds (26 percent of 565 species) and mammals (49 percent of 104
species, most of which are bats) (BirdLife International 2017; IUCN 2017a).
Data for marine species are still incomplete. The approximately 12,000 marine species recorded so far
in the Caribbean are a clear underestimate for this diverse tropical region. Sampling efforts, to date,have been strongly biased toward certain habitats in coastal and shallow waters, particularly coral reefs;
there is very little information available about benthic organisms below 500 m (Miloslavich et al. 2010).

4.5

Globally Threatened Species

With just around 10 percent of the hotspot’s original habitat remaining, most of the major habitat loss
has already occurred. Nevertheless, in the face of population growth (albeit slowing) and changing
land-use patterns, what little habitat remains is at risk from both human activity and natural disasters.
The hotspot’s biodiversity is at serious risk of species extinctions, even due to the loss of relatively
small patches of habitat. In percentage terms, amphibians and reptiles are among the most threatened of
the taxonomic groups assessed, at 73 percent and 31 percent respectively (Table 4.1).
Table 4.1: Species Diversity, Endemicity and Global Threat Status in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot
Taxonomic GroupSpecies104

Hotspot Endemic Percentage
Species
Endemic51
49.0

Globally Threatened Percentage
SpeciesThreatened26
25.0

Mammals
Birds

565

148

26.2

55

9.7

Reptiles

602

494

82.1

184

30.6

Amphibians

200

191

95.5

146

73.0

Bony fishes

1,538

65

4.2

42

2.7

Cartilaginous fishes

83

-

-

17

20.5

Reef-forming corals

91

-

-

15

16.5

Seed plants

10,948

7,868

71.9

507

4.6

Total

14,134

8,817

62.4

992

7.0

4.6

Ecosystem Services

Although there have been some studies of ecosystem services in the insular Caribbean, there is muchless information available about the hotspot’s ecosystem and ecological services than for other regionsin the Americas. The available information is fragmented and not yet compiled at the hotspot scale. Allof the hotspot’s ecosystems, and, by extension, many of its KBAs, provide multiple ecosystem services.
The main services provided include provision of water, food and non-timber forest products,
moderation of extreme hydrometeorological events, erosion control and maintenance of soil fertility,
carbon sequestration and storage, recreation and tourism, and spiritual experience and sense of place.
9

5

CONSERVATIONOUTCOMES
DEFINEDFORCARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOTTHECEPF invests in defining conservation outcomes to identify a quantifiable set of species, sites andcorridors that must be conserved to promote the long-term persistence of global biodiversity. By
presenting quantitative, justifiable and verifiable targets against which the success of investments canbe measured, conservation outcomes allow the limited resources available for conservation to betargeted more effectively and their impacts to be monitored at the global scale. Conservation outcomesare set in terms of extinctions avoided (species outcomes), areas protected (site outcomes) andcorridors consolidated (corridor outcomes).
CEPF defines species outcomes as extinctions avoided at the global level, which directly links toglobally threatened species using the IUCN Red List categories: Critically Endangered, Endangered
and Vulnerable. This definition excludes Data Deficient species, which are considered priorities forfurther research but not necessarily for conservation action per se. The basis for defining species
outcomes for the Caribbean Island Biodiversity Hotspot profile is the 2017-3 IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species (www.iucnredlist.org), which is the authoritative data source on the global
conservation status of species.
Given that most globally threatened species in the Caribbean are best conserved by protecting a
network of sites at which they occur, the basis for defining site outcomes is the comprehensive set of
KBAs in the hotspot. KBAs are sites of importance for the global persistence of biodiversity. The
identification of KBAs follows the Global Standard for the Identification of Key Biodiversity Areas(IUCN 2016). Only seven of the 11 available sub-criteria were used to identify KBAs in the Caribbean:
threatened species (Criteria A1a-e); individually geographically restricted species (B1); anddemographic aggregations (D1, for some birds only).
While the protection of a network of sites may be sufficient for conserving most elements of Caribbean
biodiversity in the medium term, the long-term conservation of biodiversity often requires theconsolidation of interconnected landscapes of sites, or “conservation corridors”, especially in larger
island landscapes. Conservation corridors are anchored on KBAs, with the rest of the corridor
comprising either areas that have the potential to become KBAs in their own right (throughmanagement or restoration) or areas that contribute to the ability of the conservation corridor to support
all elements of biodiversity in the long term. Emphasis was placed on maintaining continua of natural
habitat across environmental gradients, particularly altitudinal gradients, in order to maintain such
ecological processes as altitudinal migration of bird species and to provide a safeguard against thepotential impacts of climate change.

5.1

Species Outcomes

The biodiversity of the Caribbean Islands Hotspot is at serious risk of species extinctions. Of the taxa
reviewed for the prepareation of the ecosystem profile, 992 species are assessed as globally threatened.
Of the 992 globally threatened species in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot, 575 species occur in countries
eligible to receive CEPF funding. These comprise 14 mammals, 37 birds, 118 reptiles, 78 amphibians,
33 bony fishes, 16 cartilagenous fishes, 11 reef-forming corals, 258 flowering plants, seven conifers
and three cycads.
10

5.2

Site Outcomes

A total of 324 KBAs were identified in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot, 167 of which are in
CEPF-eligible countries (Figure 5.1). These sites were identified at different points in time using
different methodologies. As a result, there are currently four different datasets for Caribbean KBAs:
there are 167 KBAs in the CEPF-eligible countries; there are 91 in European overseas countries andterritories and outermost regions; there are 28 in Cuba; and there are 38 in Puerto Rico and the US
Virgin Islands. The sites in Cuba and the overseas entities of the EU and USA were identified before
the new KBA Standard (IUCN 2016) was introduced. At some point in the future, these KBAs should
be re-assessed against the new KBA Standard, in order to resolve their global/regional status.
Figure 5.1. Key Biodiversity Areas in the Caribbean Island Biodiversity Hotspot

5.3

Corridor Outcomes

Seven conservation corridors, covering 47 KBAs, were defined for the Caribbean Islands Hotspot.
Ecological connectivity within river catchments was strongly emphasized, because of the importance of
maintaining flows of ecosystem goods and services and the linkages to land, water, forest, biodiversity
and coastal resource management, which potentially contribute to poverty reduction, sustainable
livelihoods and climate resilience. The conservation corridors occur in five countries, with one of themshared between Haiti and the Dominican Republic (Figure 5.2).
11

Figure 5.2 CEPF Conservation Corridors of the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot

12

6

THREATS TO BIODIVERSITY IN THE HOTSPOT

6.1

Threats

Terrestrial biodiversity in the hotspot has been impacted by humans since the first arrival ofpeople in the Caribbean some 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. However, negative impacts increased
substantially following the arrival of Europeans from the end of the 15th century onwards, andhave escalated in the last 50 years due to the rapidly increasing island populations and economies
in the region (Brooks et al. 2002).
The main prioritized threats to the terrestrial biodiversity of the insular Caribbean, based on areview of the threats to the hotspot’s 992 globally threatened species, are: over-exploitation of
biological resources; habitat destruction and fragmentation due to agricultural/aquaculture, urban,
tourism and industrial/commercial development; predation and competition by invasive alien(and other problematic) species; and, increasingly, climate change/severe weather events (IUCN
2017b; Table 9.1).
Pollution is a major threat to the marine environment in the hotspot (CEP 2003). While pollution
and sedimentation pose a threat to freshwater ecosystems, they also affect the marine
environment extensively. Given the relatively small size of most Caribbean islands, pollution
from terrestrial sources tends to end up in coastal waters. Sedimentation and pollutants flowing
downstream affect coastal water quality, smother corals, kill fish and reduce the tourism andrecreational value of beaches in many countries.
Unsustainable use of limited, and often dwindling, biological resources is the primary threat tobiodiversity across the Caribbean Islands Hotspot. It has been identified as a threat to 29 percentof the globally threatened species in the hotspot. The main activities that fall into this threat
category in the hotspot include: timber extraction; over-collection of wood for fuel (especiallycharcoal); collection of plants for horticulture; unsustainable hunting and egg collection for foodor sport; and trapping of animals for the pet and aquarium trades.
The expansion and intensification of agriculture and aquaculture is an identified threat to28 percent of the globally threatened species in the hotspot. Large-scale clearance of land for
agriculture, principally sugarcane plantations at lower elevations, started in the 16th century, andincreased through the 18th and 19th centuries, leading to widespread deforestation throughout theregion (the timber being used for construction and fuel for the sugar factories). The later rise of
new agricultural export markets led to further periods of intense deforestation, such as during
and after the banana boom of the 1970s and 1980s in the Windward Islands. Recent threats tomontane forest from agriculture come from extension of cocoa, coffee and tobacco plantations.
The abandonment of sugar (and other major crops, such as cotton, on some islands) due tochanged economic conditions or a reduction in soil fertility often resulted in transformation to
pasture and a large increase of livestock production, especially cattle.
Invasive alien species (IAS) pose a threat to 19 percent of the hotspot’s globally threatened
species, especially its endemic species. The most damaging IAS on islands are typicallyterrestrial vertebrates such as goats, feral cats, pigs and rats. Like other islands, Caribbean

habitats are vulnerable to impacts of invasive species because of the generally small populationsof indigenous species, the evolutionary effects of isolation, and the release of introduced species
from natural enemies (Kairo et al. 2003). The spread of IAS is facilitated in the Caribbean by theregion’s dependence on imports, its high degree of exposure to extreme weather events, and themultiplicity of pathways that alien species may use to reach the islands.
Emerging infectious diseases are a newly recognized threat to biodiversity globally and in the
Caribbean. Amphibian chytridiomycosis is a striking example of this threat (Daszak et al. 2000).
Caused by the recently described chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis,
chytridiomycosis is a disease that is capable of driving amphibian populations and species toextinction (Skerratt et al. 2007, Chenga et al 2011). Within the Caribbean, the amphibian chytrid
fungus is known to occur on the islands of Puerto Rico, Hispaniola, Dominica, Cuba, andMontserrat. The disease has been implicated in the decline of mountain chicken (Leptodactylus
fallax) on Dominica and Montserrat, and is suspected in the probable extinction of three species
from Puerto Rico (Burrowes et al. 2004, Díaz et al. 2007).
Loss of habitat to residential and commercial development has been identified as a threat to17 percent of all globally threatened species in the hotspot. The considerable growth of the
populations and economies of most Caribbean countries in the last 50 years has beenaccompanied by extensive urban industrial and commercial developments and associatedinfrastructure. This has led to the destruction and degradation of huge areas of natural habitats,transforming the landscape and character of many Caribbean islands. Of greatest concern has
been the enormous, uncontrolled, growth of tourism in the Caribbean region, with thewidespread construction of hotels, marinas and associated developments, especially along coasts
with white-sand beaches and coral reefs offshore, often resulting in beach erosion and otherprofound impacts (UNEP RCU 2001, UNEP 2004b).
While it is accepted that climate change has adversely affected biodiversity at the genetic,
species and ecosystem levels, and will continue to do so, there is an incomplete understanding of
the full scope of how changes in climate already underway are affecting species and ecosystems
in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot. So, although climate change has been identified as a threat tojust 9 percent of globally threatened species in the hotspot, it is expected to become recognized
as a greater threat to biodiversity over time. Climate change interacts with other threats toincrease the vulnerability of species and ecosystems.
Extensive loss of natural habitats has also occurred due to mining activities in some countries.
This is most notable on Jamaica, where significant areas, particularly of native forest in thecenter of the country, have been lost due to bauxite mining and limestone quarrying, and largely
pristine tracts of wet limestone forest are threatened. Bauxite mining has also occurred on Cubaand Hispaniola, although nickel, cobalt, iron and copper are Cuba’s main mining products.

6.2

Root Causes and Barriers

There is a complex mix of interacting socio-economic, political, cultural and environmental
factors driving environmental change and threatening biodiversity in the insular Caribbean.
Principal among these are increasing population and material consumption, poverty and14inequitable access to resources, the inherent economic and environmental vulnerability of theislands to external forces such as changes in global trade regimes, and climate change. Some ofthese, such as poverty, are local or national issues, while others, such as climate change, require
attention at the global level to solve.
At a fundamental level, many trends affecting biodiversity and ecosystems in the insular
Caribbean reflect the limited land available for an ever-increasing number of users. The
Caribbean islands have some of the highest population densities in the world, and all countries
are witnessing rapid rates of urbanization and migration from rural to urban areas. These
demographic changes have increased the concentration of people in ecologically sensitive areas,
particularly coastal zones and mountain slopes, which has led to severe environmental
degradation in some countries.
Along with increasing populations, many countries in the region have seen a rise in GDP andaverage incomes in recent decades with the rise of a middle class that has generated demand fordeveloped world goods and lifestyles. Along with increased trade, which has increased theincidence and risk of IAS introduction, the change in consumption patterns has led to increased
pressure on land for housing and urban development, as well as environmental services,
particularly energy and freshwater. In the case of water, especially the reliable provision of cleanwater, demand is exceeding natural supply capacity. This is caused in part by the huge demandsof the agriculture and tourism sectors, and by a reduction in supply, quality and reliability as aresult of forest conversion, pollution and soil erosion in river catchments.
Although most countries in the Caribbean are considered middle or high income, there are highlevels of economic inequity in some countries. Poor people in the Caribbean often depend
directly on natural resources but are frequently forced to use them unsustainably because of
immediate survival needs. Consequently, poverty is considered a root cause of biodiversity andecosystem loss and degradation on many of the islands. Lack of legal ownership of, and access to,land and resources are two of the key determinants of poverty in the Caribbean. In addition, poorgroups and individuals have little voice in decision-making, and fewer rights, and are often
displaced or dispossessed by existing power structures and vested interests. Control over natural
resources and their use has been, and remains, in the hands of the wealthy and powerful,including governments. Consequently, poor farmers and rural communities have few alternatives
to cutting down the remaining forests and growing subsistence crops on marginal erosion-prone
lands or overexploiting natural resources. Given their reliance on biodiversity and ecosystemservices, those most hurt by environmental degradation are usually the rural poor themselves.
There are several constraints that need to be overcome to address the environmental threatsoutlined above and achieve more effective conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services.
The main ones identified at the ecosystem profile national consultations were: poor land-use
planning; limited capacity and financial resources for biodiversity conservation andenvironmental management; lack of awareness and understanding of the importance of
biodiversity and ecosystem services; vested interests, corruption and lack of political will; weak
and ineffective policy and legislation; inefficient institutional frameworks, networks andcollaboration; inadequate public participation in decision-making processes; and limited
technical and scientific knowledge and poor availability of information.

15

7

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Although the Caribbean islands are, to some extent, culturally, politically, economically, andsocially diverse, there are notable commonalities in history, culture, and ethnic composition.
These include a history of European colonization that led to the dominance of the plantation
system and the creation of Creole societies built on the early elimination of indigenous people
and import of slave and indentured labor. Caribbean cultures grew out of a blend of traditions
from various societies and continents. The region is ethnically diverse, with large numbers ofpeople of African descent and relatively small indigenous Amerindian populations (Brown et al.
2007).
The Caribbean’s infrastructure-driven development model comes at the expense of biodiversity(Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean 2015, UNEP 2016b). This is at
odds with the high level of dependence by Caribbean countries on natural resource-supported
economic activities, such as fisheries, agriculture, and tourism. Although the natural resourcebase is of great economic importance in the hotspot, the value of ecosystem services is still notincorporated into development planning, and overall there are few economic instruments acrossthe Caribbean that promote biodiversity conservation.

7.1

Human Demography and Impact on the Environment

In 2016, the regional population was approximately 38 million. Populations have increased
significantly in the last 40 years in most countries, although the rate of growth has slowed. The
region’s population is projected to increase slightly by 2050, although with differences among
countries. Some are expected to have substantial population growth, for example Haiti and theDominican Republic, while others are predicted to experience a decline, for example Cuba
(Population Reference Bureau 2008). Urban areas are growing faster in the Caribbean thananywhere else in the world. At the start of the millennium, 62 percent of the population lived inurban areas. This proportion is projected to reach 75 percent by 2025 (United Nations,
Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division 2014).

7.2

Political, Economic and Social Issues

There is wide variation in Caribbean political systems. This is partly a reflection of former orcurrent colonial affiliations. Half of the islands in the hotspot are overseas countries or territories
or outermost regions of France, the Netherlands, the UK or the USA, while the other half aresovereign states.
The small, open economies of the Caribbean Islands are vulnerable to external shocks, such as
natural disasters, fluctuating commodity prices in the world market, and volatility in the tourism
sector, which is a major income-earning sector in most countries. Based on their gross national
income per capita, all the hotspot’s countries are classified as high or upper middle income by
the World Bank, except Haiti, which is classified as low income.
Caribbean economies depend heavily on external trade. The loss of non-reciprocal andpreferential trade agreements as part of recent globalization measures has contributed to the16decline of the traditional agricultural sector in the region and increased competition in theinternational marketplace. Regional economic growth slowed during and after the global
economic crisis of 2008-2009, and this was coupled with reductions in overseas development
assistance and private investment. Stimulus measures implemented by countries have included
short-term construction initiatives that can degrade habitats and affect biodiversity.
Several CEPF-eligible countries continue to be burdened by high levels of debt. Barbados andJamaica, for example, have debt-to-GDP ratios greater than 100 percent (Caribbean
Development Bank 2016). Debt servicing obligations limit fiscal space for economic and social
investment, including investment in the natural resource base.
Participants in the national consultations highlighted linkages between sustainable livelihoods
and biodiversity conservation in the hotspot. While the poor are particularly vulnerable toenvironmental degradation, poverty also drives unsustainable use of resources, for example, theuse of forest or mangrove-derived charcoal for fuel, or encroachment on watersheds and forested
areas for agricultural land.
Poverty has a gendered dimension in the region, with female-headed households more likely to
be poor than male-headed households and there is a greater prevalence of poverty among womenthan men (Rawwida Baksh and Associates 2016). There has been little research about genderroles and the use and management of natural resources in the Caribbean. Women are, however,involved in productive sectors that depend on natural resources, such as agriculture and fisheries,
and are, therefore, affected by environmental threats to these sectors.
Although the Caribbean private sector includes national, regional and multinational players, it
mainly comprises locally owned, small and medium-sized enterprises that operate in small andmedium-sized towns and lack strong links to the global economy (The Economist Intelligence
Unit Limited 2015). Many of the large private sector companies in the region have establishedcharitable, non-profit foundations as a vehicle for corporate giving in the countries andcommunities where they operate. Most of these corporate foundations orient their giving towards
social issues (education, health, etc.), although some have an environmental focus.
Efforts to engage the private sector in conservation efforts across the region have met withvarying degrees of success. During the initial phase of CEPF investment, seven projects in
Antigua and Barbuda, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti resulted in successful collaborations
with the private sector, with the most traction being gained in the Dominican Republic. Efforts to
involve the tourism industry have met with most success at the very local level. Some tourism
interests have made conservation funding an important part of their CSR activities. Smaller
adventure and outdoor recreation-oriented hotels, for example, have supported conservation of
the resources upon which they depend, and small-scale, community-run ecotourism ventures areopen for business in several countries.
There are several examples of private sector support for environmental initiatives outside of the
tourism sector. The Coalición Rio (River Coalition) in the Dominican Republic was formed in2015 to stimulate private sector participation and investment in the clean-up and rehabilitation of
the heavily contaminated Ozama and Isabela rivers, which flow through Santo Domingo city.

17

7.3

Key Economic Sectors

Tourism is the primary economic driver in most Caribbean economies having taken over fromagriculture, which has suffered a steady overall decline since the 1960s. In 2016, the total
contribution of travel and tourism in the region was $56.4 billion or 14.9 percent of GDP (WTTC
2017a). In some countries, the total contribution of tourism to GDP exceeds 80 percent. Viewed
purely in terms of contribution to growth, GDP, and employment, tourism development can beconsidered a success for the region. However, the sector puts pressure on the natural resourcebase on which it depends and those mechanisms that are in place to capture economic rents or
payments from the sector channel relatively little back into conservation. The Caribbean’s mass
tourism is highly dependent on coastal and marine areas, and the concentration of tourism
infrastructure and activities in the coastal zone puts pressure on coastal habitats. The industry
also places a high demand on freshwater and energy resources and generates large quantities ofsolid and liquid waste.
There has been a drive towards the development of eco-tourism and community-based natureand heritage tourism products in several hotspot countries, although this has been done as part ofmoves to diversify the tourism product, and not to promote fundamental change towards moresustainable models. These forms of tourism can, however, be a way of fostering stewardship ofnatural resources within communities. Within the sector, there appears to be growing concern
about sustainability and good environmental practice, particularly in the face of climate change.
The role of the agricultural sector in the Caribbean has been diminishing for decades, with its
contribution to GDP for the region falling from 11.1 percent in 1990 to an average 4.3 percent in2000. Besides a lack of competitiveness, the sector is faced with the loss of access to preferential
European markets and growing consumer demand for imported food. The percentage of landarea under agriculture in the hotspot has remained relatively constant since 2009. The
abandonment of agricultural land is leading to a trend of increasing forest cover (albeit ofsecondary forest) in some countries (FAO 2014).
Although the forestry sector in the insular Caribbean is small, it can be locally important. Mostislands are heavily dependent on imports to meet their paper, sawn wood, and wood-based panel
requirements. The economic contribution of the forestry sector to GDP is, therefore, also
relatively small and fluctuates between 0 and 1.6 percent within hotspot countries.
Mining and quarrying are an important source of foreign exchange for some hotspot countries,
especially Cuba, the Dominican Republic and Jamaica. Concerns about the negative impacts ofmining and quarrying activities, particularly open-pit bauxite mining, on human health,communities and the environment are growing.
Per capita energy use is high in the Caribbean. Due to limited development of other sources,
90 percent of all energy used in the region comes from petroleum, most of which is imported athigh cost. Renewables represent only 8 percent of the energy mix for the region, compared to 20
percent globally (UNDP 2016b). Nevertheless, hotspot countries are moving towards increasing
their use of renewables. Aruba has a target of being fossil fuel free by 2020, for example.

18

8

POLICY CONTEXT OF THE HOTSPOT

Biodiversity protection and management in the Caribbean takes place through a multi-layered,multi-scalar system of policy, legislative and institutional frameworks. National-level action is
informed and complemented by regional and international initiatives and frameworks.

8.1

International Frameworks and Agreements

CEPF-eligible countries in the hotspot are signatory to several multilateral environmental
agreements (MEAs) that guide global, regional, and national action on environmental issues.
These include the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). There are also a number of regional policies andagreements that directly and indirectly influence biodiversity management, such as the Cartagena
Convention’s Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife (SPAW). Thirty-two
protected areas in the hotspot have been listed under the SPAW Protocol, six of which are in
CEPF-eligible countries.
Caribbean countries, like many other developing nations, have found it difficult to fulfill their
MEA obligations due to a lack of capacity to address emerging and increasingly complex
scientific and technical issues (CARICOM n.d.). UN Environment (formerly UNEP) and the
CARICOM Secretariat have responded to this challenge with the Caribbean Hub of theProgramme for Capacity Building Related to Multilateral Environmental Agreements.

8.2

Regional Institutional Frameworks, Policies and Initiatives

Key regional groupings include the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Organisation ofEastern Caribbean States (OECS) and the Association of Caribbean States (ACS). The
secretariats and technical institutes of these associations administer regional projects and policies
that address biodiversity concerns. The Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC)
in Belize is the CARICOM institution mandated to coordinate the Caribbean region’s response to
climate change. There is no specific regional inter-governmental body responsible forbiodiversity in the way that there is a regional organization devoted to climate change. However,
the mandates of CARICOM and the OECS include sharing human resources and providing
technical expertise to countries where specific skill sets are absent. In some instances, regional
agencies act as intermediaries between international funders and national stakeholders. In thisway, several multi-country projects are managed by these regional organizations.
The challenges associated with the hotspot’s regional agencies include overlap of mandates and,sometimes, redundancy in projects and programs. Regional agencies have also been critiqued fortheir low level of civil society engagement. At the project level, engagement is primarily withnational governmental agencies rather than civil society. Where engagement with civil society
occurs, it is generally at the point of implementation, often with civil society as beneficiaries,
rather than at the strategic stage of conceptualization and design. There is scope for improved
coordination among regional initiatives as well as increased involvement of civil society forbetter management of the region’s biodiversity resources.

19

8.3

National Policies, Strategies, Plans and Institutional Frameworks

The policy and institutional context for protected area management in the hotspot is changing but
there remain challenges that impede efforts. All CEPF-eligible countries have institutionalframeworks in place, with legal underpinnings, for protected area management. However, theinstitutional landscape can be complex, with many agencies having authority over protectedareas but few overarching coordinating mechanisms being in place, particularly at theoperational level.
Countries have established different categories, norms, and nomenclatures for their protectedareas but many have sought to use the protected area categories established by IUCN. National
protected area systems in the hotspot include UNESCO World Heritage Sites and Biosphere
Reserves, as well as Wetlands of International Importance designated under the Ramsar
Convention.
Most hotspot countries now have defined protected area systems. Active management does notalways accompany protection under national frameworks, and implementation of system-levelprotected area master plans (and site-level management plans) has been impeded by a
combination of lack of resources, capacity and political will (Brown et al. 2007).
The extent of marine and terrestrial areas under formal protection in CEPF-eligible countries in
the Caribbean has increased by approximately 7 million hectares since 2009. Of this total, theinitial phase of CEPF investment contributed to bringing 111,496 hectares under new or
expanded protection.
Most protected areas in CEPF-eligible countries are public, having been declared at the national
level. However, the initial phase of CEPF investment helped demonstrate proof of concept ofpolicy framework provisions for decentralizing protected areas through support for thedeclaration of the Dominican Republic’s first private protected area and Haiti’s first municipal
reserve.
There have also been legislative and institutional advances in several CEPF-eligible countries
since 2009. The GEF, in particular, has been instrumental in supporting the development ofpolicy and institutional frameworks in hotspot countries. Ongoing investments in Dominica, St.
Kitts and Nevis, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines are helping to expand protection, strengthen
management and address legal and regulatory gaps. A GEF project to establish a financiallysustainable national protected areas system in Haiti, which ended in 2014, helped tooperationalize the national protected areas agency (ANAP) and build its technical capacity(Lefebvre 2017).
Nevertheless, the multiplicity of policies, laws and jurisdictions that exists can result in
disjointed actions, rather than a more holistic approach that the interconnected ecosystems ofsmall island states require. Improved land-use planning is essential for the rationalization of
resources given competing interests. Other shortcomings include gaps in regulatory frameworks,
for example, for environmental impact assessments (EIAs), strategic environmental assessments,
financing mechanisms, and hunting, as well as a lack of enforcement of existing legislation.

20

9

CIVIL SOCIETY CONTEXT

Caribbean civil society is heterogenous: organizations have a wide range of interests andmandates, multiple agendas, and varying levels of capacity. There is little coherence across thesector and relatively few fora in which CSOs, in particular non-governmental organizations(NGOs), engage among themselves across thematic issues, countries and languages. It is difficult
to obtain precise information and data or even reasonable estimates about the size and scope of
Caribbean civil society (Webson 2010, Bowen 2015).

9.1

Civil Society Activity in the Environmental SphereA rapid exercise to map CSOs in the hotspot identified 379 local, national, regional andinternational non-profit, non-governmental, and academic organizations working on environmentand conservation issues (including in the productive sectors of fisheries, agriculture andecotourism) in CEPF-eligible countries. Although the primary mandate of all these organizations
may not be natural resource management or biodiversity conservation, they are all involved in
activities that support or overlap with those areas. For example, several organizations work onsocioeconomic development in rural communities and, in that context, promote livelihood
strategies aligned with sustainable natural resource use. These strategies include agroforestry andapiculture in protected area buffer zones and countering unsustainable mangrove harvesting.
The main type of organization identified in the mapping exercise was NGOs. Although NGOs
are the most represented, there are many active CBOs and resource user (producer) associations(for example, fisherfolk, farmers, beekeepers, tour and dive operators) in the hotspot. It is
important to note, however, that only a subset of these organizations is active at the sites
prioritized for the new phase of CEPF investment. It is also important to note that some of thosegroups move in and out of activity, depending on availability of funding and institutional
capacity at any given time.
All CEPF-eligible countries have least one NGO with a mission that includes biodiversity
conservation or related issues, and many have co-management responsibilities for protectedareas. The mapping exercise identified 145 national and regional NGOs, of which 137 arenational and work at the national or site level. The results of the exercise suggest that the work ofmost environmental NGOs is weighted towards an operational orientation (i.e., a focus on thedesign and implementation of activities related to management of sites and/or species,
sustainable livelihoods, community development, environmental education, etc.) rather thanadvocacy (i.e., a focus on influencing the policies and practices of governments or institutions),
even though many groups appear to be engaged in a combination of both.
The operational work of NGOs includes site-based management, with some organizations
working at a very large scale. The Bahamas National Trust, for example, manages the entire
national parks system of the Bahamas (33 national parks, covering over 800,000 hectares). The
Jamaica Conservation and Development Trust manages the 49,520-hectare Blue and John Crow
Mountains National Park Heritage site.

21

More NGOs operate at the national level than at the regional level. During the initial phase of
CEPF investment in the hotspot, a new regional environmental network, Nature Caribé, wasformed out of a project to strengthen networking among the CSO members of the IUCN
Caribbean Regional Committee with the intention of filling a gap in collaborative policy
influencing and action.
International NGOs (INGOs) play an important role in channeling resources to national and localgroups: just over three-quarters of the CSOs surveyed said they had been funded by and throughINGOs in the past three years. The type of support provided by INGOs varies but typically goes
towards project implementation. Some indigenous Caribbean organizations, however, areconcerned about what they perceive to be predatory behavior and competition for donor
resources from some external NGOs. The policies and practices of INGOs may impact
negatively on indigenous NGOs by disrupting operations, draining capacity and distracting or redirecting focus. Partnerships are not always equitable.
CBOs have been playing an increasingly important role in biodiversity conservation in the
Caribbean. These groups may be organized around a business or productive activity like
agriculture or fisheries and may directly or indirectly benefit conservation (for example,
sustainable farming in a KBA buffer zone or ecotourism in a protected area). The scope of theseorganizations is generally more narrowly focused than that of their NGO counterparts and theircapacity to plan, implement and evaluate programs tends to be lower. Many require
accompaniment from NGOs or government agencies. They are, however, an essential componentof national and local efforts to implement socio-culturally relevant and sustainable conservation
and resource management initiatives. The mapping exercise identified 63 environmentallyfocused CBOs and 84 producer organizations in CEPF-eligible countries.
The hotspot’s tertiary education and research institutions play an important role in supporting
biodiversity conservation and environmental management through their research and outreach.
This engagement occurs at different levels, such as partnering with local communities and NGOs
to carry out tailored research in support of project implementation, collaborating withgovernment institutions and agencies, and implementing multi-partner national and regional
programs.

9.2

Operating Environment

The space for civil society in the Caribbean hotspot is more open than in many regions of theworld, but a trend of narrowing of this space has been observed in some countries in the region(CIVICUS 2017a). The CIVICUS Monitor (June 2016 - March 2017) of trends in civic space incountries of the hotspot, reported “narrowed” civic space in 10 of the 11 CEPF-eligible countries.
Only one country was rated as “open”: Barbados (CIVICUS 2017a).
Notwithstanding concerns about narrowing civic space, Caribbean CSOs have been engaging
more in national and regional policy and decision-making processes and are increasingly
recognized as important actors in those spheres. In Jamaica, for example, the four boards with
the national land-use and planning decision-making authority include members drawn from civilsociety. In Haiti, CSOs are part of the Protected Areas Working Group (Groupe de Travail sur22les Aires Protégées), which was set up by the protected areas management agency, ANAP, in2014 to contribute to the establishment of a physical, regulatory and administrative framework to
make Haiti’s protected areas functional.

9.3

Civil Society Capacity Needs

The capacity of the hotspots’ CSOs varies. Although there are some strong organizations withadvanced governance and management systems, the overall picture is of a sector that could
benefit from further strengthening in targeted areas. Many of the region’s CSOs are small andunder-capacitated, and some are quite isolated, especially in the Lesser Antilles and on Haiti.
Although some organizations are stronger in 2017 than they were in 2010, many continue to face
limitations in their administrative, managerial, financial and technical capacity. Many haveinsufficient funds to hire the staff needed to maintain a fully functional organization.
There was high demand for capacity building support during the initial phase of CEPF
investment in the hotspot, and this investment contributed to the organizational and technicalcapacity development of 58 CSOs in such areas as strategic planning, business planning,financial management, social and mass media communication, and basic conservation science.
Notwithstanding the support provided by CEPF during its initial phase, stakeholders in the
consultation process confirmed that the environmental and conservation civil society sector
continues to have both technical and organizational capacity needs. The primary organizational
capacity need identified during the consultation process was financial sustainability, although theneed for support for project design and implementation, particularly among CBOs, was also
highlighted. The results of the CSO survey show higher levels of satisfaction among respondents
with their financial and project management capacity than with staff fundraising capacity. Sixtythree percent of the organizations surveyed were dissatisfied with their staff fundraising capacity,and 44 percent were dissatisfied with their ability to identify sources of funding and adapt tofunding opportunities. All of the surveyed CSOs reported having more than one source offunding during the three previous years but the level of reliance on grant funding is high. The
four primary sources of funding reported were INGOs (76 percent), international private
foundations (42 percent), private sector foundations (39 percent) and government subventions(39 percent). National conservation and environmental trust funds are not yet a significant sourceof funding across the region but, as these mechanisms come on stream, it is expected that they
will become a more important source of financing for CSOs.
Beyond overcoming capacity building for financial sustainability, areas in which stakeholders
said that additional technical capacity was needed include conservation planning, data collection
and management, invasive species management, and co-management. While some capacity
exists within organizations, there is scope for further development and strengthening across thesector. Consultation participants noted, however, that long-term sustainability of conservation
efforts will be elusive unless critical barriers to conservation are addressed, including gaps innational policy frameworks, and weaknesses in governance processes. They also emphasized theimportance of engendering knowledge and awareness among communities and otherstakeholders, given the linkages between community/stakeholder benefit, buy-in, and effective
management outcomes. Strong CSOs alone will not deliver conservation results.

23

10

CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT

10.1 Caribbean Climate Trends
The number of days during which maximum temperatures exceed 35˚C have increased in the
Caribbean, as have the number of nights above 25˚C. There has been an overall warming rate of
0.19°C per decade. Regional climate modeling tools, such as the Providing Regional Climatesfor Impact Studies (PRECIS) tool, suggest that a 1 to 4˚C increase is likely over the next hundredyears (Cashman et al. 2010, IPCC 2014, Stephenson et al. 2014, Cap-Net 2015).
Average rainfall records for the Caribbean over the past 100 years have shown a consistent
reduction in precipitation; this trend is predicted to continue. Some variation of this pattern is
expected, however, with possible wetter conditions in the northern Caribbean, while the main
Caribbean basin is expected to be drier. Overall, dry seasons are expected to be drier and more
protracted, and drought frequency is expected to increase. The number of days of consecutive
rainfall will increase. When rain does fall, it will be characterized by heavy downpours rather
than light drizzles, thereby triggering more frequent landslides and flooding.
Sea level rise has been occurring in the Caribbean at a rate of 20 to 40 mm every decade, and islikely to increase by 5 to 10 mm per year into the future (Cashman et al. 2010, IPCC 2014,
Stephenson et al. 2014, Cap-Net 2015).
While it cannot yet be scientifically determined that hurricanes and storms are increasing infrequency, it is accepted that the intensity of these events is (Cashman et al. 2010, IPCC 2014,
Stephenson et al. 2014, Cap-Net 2015). The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season was one of the mostactive on record, with 13 named storms, including eight hurricanes. Five of those hurricanes
were considered major, with a rating of Category 3 or stronger. In September 2017, Barbuda,
Dominica, and Puerto Rico were devastated by Hurricane Maria: a Category 5 storm. Barbuda
was rendered uninhabitable, and all 1,400 of its residents were evacuated, marking the single
largest displacement of people due to a climate event in the hotspot to date.

10.2 Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on Biodiversity
Climate change and climate variability are expected to increase rates of species loss and provide
opportunities for the establishment of IAS, resulting in changes in the dominant species inecosystems. The most visible impact of climate change on biodiversity in the Caribbean to datehas been coral bleaching (Petit and Prudent 2010). Almost all the hotspot’s coral reefs have been
affected, with the most recent widespread impacts resulting from the third global coral bleaching
event, which began in 2015. Climate change may also facilitate invasive pathways (Masters et al.
2010). Warmer temperatures are implicated in the spread of fungi, such as chytridiomycosis,
which decimated mountain chicken populations in Dominica and Montserrat in 2002 and 2009
respectively (Hudson et al. 2016). Sea level rise is likely to result in inundation of breeding andnesting sites, and seawater intrusion into fresh groundwater sources, causing problems for coastal
plants, animals and ecosystems. Mangroves are especially vulnerable to the impacts of sea-levelrise, since they often have limited space to move landward due to seawalls and other types ofcoastal development.
24

Terrestrial species ranges are likely to shift altitudinally and latitudinally due to air temperature
increases. As temperatures increase, species that cannot tolerate heat, such as those found in
Caribbean elfin forests, will (if they are able to) migrate to higher altitudes and latitudes insearch of cooler conditions. Species movement may, in turn, reduce the utility of existing
protected area boundaries and require research and legislative changes to adjust boundaries.

10.3 Overview of Climate Change Responses
Caribbean countries are among the lowest greenhouse gas emitters but, paradoxically, must copewith some of the most devastating impacts of climate change. This means that, although
Caribbean states’ climate change responses include mitigation, as articulated in their Nationally
Determined Contributions, they must also focus heavily on adaptation to assure their very
survival in the face of unprecedented change (Taylor 2017).
An assessment of climate funding for small island developing states between 2003 and 2016
found that the Caribbean received most of the approved climate finance from targeted climate
funds, with 43 percent funding going towards adaptation projects, most of which fell in thedisaster prevention and preparedness category (Watson et al. 2016). Overall, the region hasreceived more support for mitigation than adaptation but, at the country level, most states havebeen receiving more funds for adaptation. The regional profile is skewed by large mitigation
inflows to Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, and Grenada (Atteridge et al.
2017). Supported by the Climate Investment Fund, the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience(PPCR) is the biggest funder in Caribbean small island developing states, funding 12 projects
with a total value of $136 million (Watson et al. 2016).
The region’s representation and actions in international fora are coordinated by the CARICOMSecretariat, the OECS Secretariat and the CCCCC. The CCCCC is the official repository andclearinghouse for regional climate change data for CARICOM member states. It provides
climate change-related policy advice and guidelines and plays a critical role in providing
technical support and channeling climate funding to the region.
The Regional Framework for Achieving Development Resilient to Climate Change andsubsequent Implementation Plan, which were approved by the CARICOM Heads of Government
in 2009 and 2012, respectively, guide the work of the CCCCC. Other regional agencies have also
used the framework and implementation plan as the basis for their climate adaptation and climate
resilience work. Strategic Element 2 of the regional framework focuses on strengthening theclimate resilience of the most vulnerable sectors, including coastal and marine ecosystems, andStrategic Element 4 promotes the adoption of best practices for sustainable forest management(CCCCC 2009).
To date, regional/multi-country projects on climate change have tended to focus more on marine
and coastal ecosystems than on terrestrial ecosystems (Mercer at al. 2014). Several of theseprojects have had a biodiversity dimension, including the GEF-funded Special Program on
Adaptation to Climate Change: Implementation of Adaptation Measures in Coastal Zones, which
was implemented by the CCCCC between 2007 and 201125

10.4 Niche for Civil Society in Climate Change Responses
Caribbean CSOs have been involved in formulating local, national, regional and eveninternational responses to climate change in the hotspot. Climate advocacy and awareness-raisinghave been the main areas of focus for civil society to date but greater civil society involvement inpolicy, technical and management aspects is needed for improved climate resilience andecosystem-based adaptation. Where local knowledge is combined with sustainable livelihoods,
utilizing resources within the hotspot, biodiversity adaptation and resilience measures are likely
to be more successful. CSOs can be particularly useful at implementing local responses bybringing to bear site-specific, local knowledge on climate adaptation and resilience measures.
CSOs have been playing an important role in building the climate resilience of communities in
the hotspot. In some instances, this work has been linked to disaster-risk-reduction efforts invulnerable communities. In some national contexts, CSOs have come together to define theirniche in the country’s climate change response. In 2011, for example, CSOs in Saint Lucia
developed a Civil Society Agenda to Address the Impact of Climate Change outlining their
specific roles and responsibilities in the decision making and implementation of responses to theimpacts of climate change.
Following the significant impacts of Hurricanes Irma and Maria in the Caribbean, some CSOs
started assessing the damage to ecosystems and species. In Sint Maarten, for example, the Sint
Maarten Nature Foundation assessed the terrestrial and marine impacts of the recent hurricanes
to understand what had happened and develop countervailing strategies. BirdsCaribbean has
conducted similar assessments on bird populations on Barbuda, while groups in Cuba haveassessed the status of key taxa. IFAW carried out assessments of Dominica’s endemic parrots in
October 2017 and began rehabilitation efforts in December.
During its initial phase of investment in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot (2010-2016),
CEPF supported six initiatives with an explicit climate change focus. Four projects in the
Dominican Republic and Jamaica focused on site-level interventions, while two projects had
policy mainstreaming outcomes in Grenada, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines. Although thefocus of these projects was to make KBA/corridor-level management more robust, in several
instances CEPF’s support facilitated the testing of new approaches in national contexts, and, in
one case, it supported a Caribbean “first”, with the establishment of a forest carbon offsets PES
scheme.
Overall, more work needs to be done to align the biodiversity conservation and climate change
agendas. There is scope for greater use of facilities like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) forbiodiversity conservation. Additionally, dedicated funding is needed to help fill information gaps,
so interventions can be better guided and directed. In particular, few studies provide detailed
guidance on what should be done when planning for conservation against the backdrop of rapid
climate change. It is important to go beyond merely using the label of “adaptation” for known
conservation approaches that are expected or thought to have a “climate adaptation” impact, toempirically understanding which actions are indeed the most appropriate (Watson et al. 2011).

26

11 ASSESSMENTINVESTMENTOF

CURRENTCONSERVATION

A mapping exercise of ongoing and recently-concluded projects in the Caribbean, conducted in2017, suggests that conservation funding is still largely derived from multilateral and bilateralsources and is often disbursed through regional projects. This was also the case in 2010, when
the CEPF first began operating in the Caribbean Islands. Most of these projects are implemented
by international or regional agencies and have country components determined by governments,
with little direct funding to civil society. There has been, however, an important change in thefunding landscape, with the establishment of the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund (CBF) and recent
establishment of national trust funds, although most of these are not yet fully operational.
Dedicated funding flows to civil society are smaller than those to governments and regional
agencies, but national conservation trust funds are new sustainable financing mechanisms in
hotspot countries that have the potential to support CSO activity over the medium to long term
and to do so strategically.

11.1 Multilateral Investments
The GEF remains one of the most important sources of funding for biodiversity conservation in
the hotspot. CSOs are supported through the Small Grants Programme (SGP) managed by UNDP,
as well as multilateral projects that include dedicated components for civil society. The mapping
exercise identified 35 projects funded by the GEF under the biodiversity focal area (or multiple
focal areas), with a total value of $161.5 million, including SGP disbursements. Excluding the
SGP, three of these grants focused on marine/coastal ecosystems, 16 on terrestrial ecosystems,
and 16 on both marine/coastal and terrestrial ecosystems. During the period between 2010 and2017, the SGP funded 311 projects with a biodiversity focus; most grants were for $50,000,
which is too small for higher capacity CSOs that want to do more ambitious, long-term work.
The InterAmerican Development Bank (IDB) aims to mainstream its support for biodiversity
projects through regular loan and technical cooperation operations. A total of 13 active grantfunded projects with components contributing to improved management of terrestrial and marine
protected areas were identified totalling around $30.4 million. Twelve were financed by the IDB
and one was funded through the Japan Special Fund Poverty Reduction Program administered by
the IDB. Of the 13 grants identified, only three are led by CSOs.
The focus of the World Bank’s support to Caribbean governments has primarily beenstrengthening macroeconomic management and supporting growth-enhancing reforms. WorldBank support for environmental and ecosystem management has been integrated into both loans
and grants. Examples of loan support incorporating biodiversity conservation include initiatives
to build climate resilience in Grenada, Saint Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines throughmeasures that include non-structural flood and landslide risk reduction interventions (WorldBank 2014, 2017f). Similarly, disaster vulnerability loan support to Jamaica included financing
ecosystem-based adaptation assessments to reduce coastal vulnerability (World Bank 2016). Fiveongoing and pipeline grants with a biodiversity component were identified in the mapping
exercise, with a combined value of $58.7 million.
27

In its role as a GEF implementing agency, the World Bank is responsible for the Caribbean
Regional Oceanscape project. Between 2011 and 2016, it implemented the GEF-funded
Sustainable Financing and Management of Eastern Caribbean Marine Ecosystem Project, which
supported the creation of the CBF and national-level protected areas trust funds in each of thefive OECS countries, as well as marine protected areas in Antigua and Barbuda and Grenada. In
2018, the World Bank will begin implementing the Resilient Productive Landscapes Project inHaiti, which includes actions to improve agricultural production and practices in support of
improved watershed and landscape management.

11.2 Bilateral Investments
The mapping exercise identified eight active programs and projects with a biodiversityconservation-related focus supported by the EU, with a combined value of $101.9 million. Most
EU funding for biodiversity is directed to public sector institutions. However, the EU also has
specific programs targeting support to civil society. It is widely perceived that the EU is one of
the most important sources of funding for civil society generally in the Caribbean, with support
targeting enhancing civil society capacity, participatory governance and rights-based initiatives,
including on environmental rights.
The EU supports developing countries and overseas countries and territories and outermost
regions in the Caribbean. Funding programs and mechanisms such as Europe Aid (International
Cooperation and Development), the European Territorial Cooperation (ETC) Interreg V
Caribbean cooperation program (2014-2020) and European Development Fund (EDF) Caribbean
Regional Indicative Programme (CRIP) promote cooperation through multi-country and regional
projects, some of which have a biodiversity conservation component or focus.
Another important multi-country initiative supported by the EU is the Caribbean BiologicalCorridor (CBC). Because three of the seven conservation corridors and 16 of the 33 KBAs
prioritized for CEPF support fall within the CBC, there will be significant opportunities forcollaboration between this initiative and CEPF, including with regard to solicitation and review
of grant proposals, to ensure good complementarity. Moreover, the CBC initiative has
synthesized a considerable amount of information on the biodiversity of the region, which CEPF
and its grantees can take advantage of when designing interventions in Cuba, the Dominican
Republic and Haiti.
The EU BEST initiative (voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in
Territories of European overseas) supports the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable useof ecosystem services, including ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation andmitigation in the EU overseas countries and territories and outermost regions. Between 2011 and2018, the BEST Initiative supported 90 projects in nine outermost regions and 25 OCTs,
including 27 projects in the Caribbean Islands, totaling €3,800,000 ($4,055,495). Thesecomprised 12 projects on species conservation, five on protected areas, six on ecosystem
restoration and four on sustainable development/ecosystem services. Programing of medium andsmall grants under the second phase of the initiative (BEST 2.0) was guided by a regional
ecosystem profile and investment strategy (Vaslet and Renoux 2016), which followed the CEPF
model. In 2019, the BEST Initiative was continued through the LIFE4BEST program, funded by
the EU LIFE Programme, the French Biodiversity Agency and AFD. LIFE4BEST is a grant28

scheme designed to provide effective support for actions on the ground at the local, as well theregional level, through swift small grants of up to €50,000.
The EU is also supporting regional biodiversity initiatives through global programs and projects
like the Global Climate Change Alliance Plus (GCCA+), which is implementing the Climate
Change Adaptation and Sustainable Land Management in the Caribbean project in the OECS
sub-region, and the EuropeAid Marine biodiversity and forest governance program(FLEGT/REDD+), which is supporting a regional project entitled Powering Innovations in Civil
Society and Enterprises for Sustainability in the Caribbean (PISCES), which aims to strengthen
the role of CSOs and small and micro-enterprises in marine protected areas. The PISCES projectis implemented by a partnership of seven Caribbean CSOs.
Other sources of bilateral funding for biodiversity conservation are increasing in importance inthe hotspot. Germany is responsible for significant bilateral inflows to the hotspot through GIZ(a government-owned development agency) and KfW (the German Development Bank). The US
government, through USAID, is currently funding three large-scale projects (two regional, one
national) with a conservation focus, as well as a sub-regional initiative in the eastern Caribbean
to build civil society capacity: the Local Capacity for Local Solutions project. Also, through the
US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Caribbean program, the US government is supporting efforts that
reduce threats to key species and the region and strengthen the capacities of local individuals andinstitutions to undertake sustained biodiversity conservation actions in the long-term.
The government of Japan is supporting the $13 million UNDP-implemented Japan-Caribbean
Climate Change Partnership in five hotspot countries (Dominica, Grenada, Jamaica, Saint Lucia,
and St. Vincent and the Grenadines), plus the continental Caribbean states and Suriname. Also,
the Japanese Trust Funds and resources from the Japan Special Fund Poverty Reduction Program
are supporting an IDB-implemented community-based conch management initiative in the
Bahamas with a budget of $500,000.
L’Agence Française de Développement (AFD) is active in Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Its
program in the Dominican Republic includes support to the Plan Sierra reforestation andcommunity development initiative in the Cordillera Central. Between 2001 and 2016, AfD
invested €13.3 million ($14.4 million) in Plan Sierra.

11.3 Pooled Investments
While most funding for biodiversity conservation in the hotspot comes from multilateral andbilateral sources, there are a few examples of pooled investments, with funding from multiple
donors. Apart from CEPF, none of these are specifically dedicated to funding CSOs, although
CSOs are included as beneficiaries. The GCF is active in the hotspot, with a focus on energy
efficiency, renewable energy and water sector resilience; one of these projects had ecosystembased adaptation components. However, the biodiversity conservation sector in the hotspot has
not yet made a concerted push to access climate funding from sources like the GCF, although
there is tremendous potential for ecosystem-based adaptation and building climate resilience.

29

11.4 Nationally Derived Funding
Expenditures on biodiversity conservation by the more than 30 governmental entities in the
Caribbean are not readily available. There are some indicative figures for national recurring
expenditure, although this is highly variable among countries. For instance, in the Dominican
Republic, the reported annual expenditure on protected areas was $10.4 million, which is lessthan half the required funding for the basic needs ($22.6 million) and optimal management($28.0 million) scenarios (World Bank 2012).
Some governments have created legislative/policy frameworks that enable CSOs to collect user
fees from the management of protected areas. For example, in the British Virgin Islands, Jamaica
and Saint Lucia, CSOs with delegated management responsibility can collect user fees andchannel them towards supporting biodiversity conservation efforts. There are also a few
examples of governments channeling support to CSOs engaged in protected area management
and other biodiversity conservation activities through subventions.

11.5 Funding from Private Sources
Private philanthropic flows for conservation in the hotpot are a part of the funding base for CSOs
in the region. Forty-percent of the CSOs that took part in the survey carried out as part of theecosystem profiling exercise indicated that they had received funding from international private
foundations in the past three years but only 5 percent said they were their primary source offunding. Just over 30 percent of respondents indicated that they received support from individual
donors, which were the main source of support for 5 percent of respondents. The main source offunding identified by respondents were INGOs: almost 80 percent of the respondents said they
had received funding from INGOs and just over 25 percent of them identified INGOs as theirmain source of support over the past three years.
Once an important source of philanthropic funding for CSOs in the Caribbean, the John D. andCatherine T. MacArthur Foundation will complete its 10-year commitment to coastal and marine
conservation efforts, with final calls for proposals in the hotspot in Cuba in 2019. All
grantmaking will conclude by 2020. MacArthur is shifting its grantmaking approach to otherpriorities, and the Conservation and Sustainable Development Program is being phased out.
Private sector foundations are also a source of support to Caribbean CSOs active in biodiversity
conservation in the hotspot. Forty percent of CSOs surveyed in 2017 obtained funding fromprivate sector foundations within the past three years, while 10 percent of respondents said they
were their principal source of support. To date, efforts to engage the national and regional private
sector in conservation efforts across the region have met with varying degrees of success to date,with the most traction being gained in the Dominican Republic, where, for example, Bepensa
S.A. de C.V., a Mexican beverage company that operates as a Coca-Cola bottler, is supportingcatchment restoration, consistent with the Coca-Cola Company’s focus on water resource
sustainability. Although several Caribbean private sector organisations in the hotspot are active
in biodiversity conservation, most private sector philanthropy and corporate social responsibility
activities in hotspot countries target social issues, such as children, youth and education.

30

11.7 Emerging Funding Sources
The CBF is a regional endowment fund that was established in 2012 to provide a sustainableflow of resources for the conservation, protection and maintenance of biodiversity within
national protected area systems and any other areas of biological importance in the Caribbean.
The CBF is part of the sustainable financing architecture set up to support the Caribbean
Challenge Initiative and its “20 by 20” goal to effectively conserve and manage at least 20
percent of the marine and coastal environment by 2020 in participating countries. Currently, the
CBF manages approximately $70 million through a conservation-focused endowment($43 million) and a sinking fund to support ecosystem-based adaptation ($26.5 million)(Caribbean Biodiversity Fund 2014).
National conservation trust funds have been established in the hotspot under the Caribbean
Challenge Initiative. Except for the Fondo MARENA in the Dominican Republic, which is agovernment fund, thes trust funds have been set up as private legal entities. Once the national
conservation trust funds are operational, the CBF will channel funding to them annually.

31

12

NICHE FOR INVESTMENT

The CEPF niche in the Caribbean Islands Biodiversity Hotspot is guided by CEPF’s mission andinformed by the experience of the initial phase of CEPF investment and the findings of theecosystem profile. The niche was defined during the three national workshops, the online
consultation process for the Bahamas and the eastern Caribbean, and the final regional workshop.
The next phase of CEPF investment will support actions and efforts begun under the initial phasethat require consolidation. In particular, it will support replication and scaling-up of goodpractice models. The activities and results of projects supported in the initial phase have beenreviewed with a view to identifying opportunities to add value through “continuity of action”.
The approach and actions of the new phase will apply lessons learned from the earlier phase
The new phase of CEPF investment seeks to: mainstream conservation values into the policy andlegal frameworks of hotspot countries; improve governance arrangements; expand financing
opportunities, particularly from local sources; and build a constituency for nature, conservationand ecosystem services. Participants in the ecosystem profile consultations emphasized theimportance of a multi-pronged approach to conservation that includes addressing the institutionaland structural impediments to management and preservation of the natural environment.
The new phase of CEPF investment will focus on priority sites: KBAs with the highest
biological values, where there is an existing civil society constituency with an interest inconservation. During the initial phase, there were examples of clustered grant-making, wherelinked grants were made to CSOs with complementary capabilities to address the conservation ofa single site. CEPF will actively promote such approaches to build synergies across grants andscale up impact in sites and corridors.
In a departure from the initial phase, the investment strategy includes a specific strategic
direction for species conservation. Participants in the consultations highlighted the need fortargeted species conservation initiatives to complement the work that is being done at site level.
The review of current funding for conservation in the hotspot revealed that little funding iscurrently earmarked for species conservation.
CEPF aims to use its investment to leverage new and existing financial and human resources aspart of a sustainability strategy for the hotspot. In implementing the strategy, CEPF seeks towork in partnership with the public and private sector to identify and maximize opportunities forvalue-added synergies. Particular emphasis will be placed on collaborating with CEPF donors
and other active conservation financiers. CEPF will also seek to co-finance and collaborate with
the EU BEST Initiative (voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in
Territories of European overseas) in the hotspot.
Biodiversity is inextricably linked with ecosystems and the services they provide for humanwell-being. CEPF recognizes that the conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of
biological diversity can help address a range of societal challenges that face the Caribbean, as
well as contribute to the hotspot’s resilience in the face of a changing climate. The investment
strategy for the new phase is, therefore, aligned not only with Aichi Targets 1, 2, 5, 9, 11, 12 and32

14 but also with the following targets Sustainable Development Goal 15: “protect, restore andpromote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat
desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss”:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland
freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular forests, wetlands, mountains anddrylands (15.1).
Promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt
deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation andreforestation globally (15.2).
Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt theloss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species(15.5).
Introduce measures to prevent the introduction and significantly reduce the impact ofinvasive alien species on land and water ecosystems and control or eradicate the priority
species (15.8).
Integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning,development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts (15.9).
Mobilize and significantly increase financial resources from all sources to conserve andsustainably use biodiversity and ecosystem (15.a).

The CEPF investment strategy also supports Sustainable Development Goal 14: “conserve andsustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources for sustainable development”. It explicitly
addresses Target 14.2, to sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid
significant adverse impacts.
Two crosscutting themes (climate change and gender) will be integrated across grant-making
objectives and programming as relevant. The 2017 Atlantic hurricane season refocused theattention of all sectors of Caribbean society on the region’s vulnerability and the need to take thethreat of climate change seriously. There is an opportunity to build on this receptiveness. Thereis also an imperative to build climate resilience to ensure sustainability of the investment. The
investment strategy recognizes the value of ecosystem-based adaptation in increasing resilienceand reducing the vulnerability of people and the environment to climate change. It explicitly
calls for climate change to be taken into consideration in conservation interventions.
Men and women often play different roles in managing natural resources. Women’s reliance on
ecosystems, for example, is usually strongly linked to the provision of water, food and health at
the household level. What is more, the degradation of ecosystems and climate change affectgroups in society differently, with disadvantaged groups often being most adversely impacted.
Consistent with CEPF’s Gender Policy, gender equity is a critical element of how the investment
strategy for the Caribbean will ensure that civil society is empowered, and that there is equitableparticipation and decision-making by stakeholders at all scales. The portfolio will be managed toensure gender analysis and recommendations are included in project design, implementation andmonitoring, and will promote best practices for incorporating gender in conservation strategies
throughout the hotspot. Gender equity will be sought under all strategic directors, and allapplications will be reviewed through a gender lens.

3313 CEPF INVESTMENT STRATEGY AND PROGRAMMATIC
FOCUS
13.1 Site, Corridor and Species Prioritization
Of the 167 KBAs identified to date in CEPF-eligible countries, the investment strategy will
target 33 sites that are considered the highest priorities (Figures 13.1 to 13.6). Twenty-three ofthese sites (70 percent) were priorities for CEPF support during the initial phase of investment(Table 13.1). Prioritized sites encompass terrestrial and nearshore marine ecosystems. The 33
priority sites cover 1.2 million hectares in eight countries; 91 percent of their land area ispartially or completely protected. Collectively, they represent those sites with the highest
biological values that are under the most threat, with the most urgent need for improved
management, and where is it possible to work without major impediments.
Table 13.1 Priority Sites for CEPF Investment
CEPF
Code

Site

1.

ATG-5

2.

ATG-6

3.

BHS-2

4.

BHS12

5.

DMA-1

North East Marine Management Antigua andArea and Fitches Creek Bay
BarbudaRedondaAntigua andBarbudaAndros Blue Holes National
BahamasPark
Exuma Cays Land and Sea
BahamasPark
Morne Diablotin National Park
Dominica

6.

DOM-4

7.

DOM-13

8.

DOM-16

9.

DOM-1810.

DOM-2011.

DOM-23

12.

DOM-24

13.

DOM-32

14.

DOM-34

15.

HTI-1

16.

HTI-3

34

Monumento Natural Cabo
SamanáParque Nacional Dr. Juan
Bautista Pérez Rancier (Valle
Nuevo)
Parque Nacional Jaragua
Parque Nacional Lago
Enriquillo e Isla Cabritos
Parque Nacional Los Haitises
Parque Nacional Montaña La
Humeadora
Parque Nacional Sierra de
Bahoruco
Refugio de Vida Silvestre
Monumento Natural Miguel
Domingo Fuerte (Bahoruco
Oriental)
Reserva Científica Ébano
Verde
Aire Protégée de Ressources
Naturelles Gérées deBaradères-Cayemites
Aire Protégée de Ressources
Naturelles Gérées des Trois
Baies

CountryLand
Area
Area (ha) Protected(ha)11,115
10,885Percentage
of KBA
Protected
98

CEPF
Priority inPhase 1
Yes

2,130

0

0

No

13,47913,479100

No60,22358,326

97

No

3,347

3,347

100

No

Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic

931

931

100

No

90,91590,894

100

Yes

Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic
Dominican
Republic

156,092

156,089

100

Yes

40,57540,575100

Yes

63,40863,408100

Yes

30,64630,646

100

Yes

109,423

109,423

100

Yes

3,362

3,362

100

Yes

Dominican
Republic
Haiti

2,999

2,999

100

Yes

87,92087,920

100

No

Haiti

75,50075,500

100

Yes

CEPF
Code

Site

Country

Haiti

Land
Area
Area (ha) Protected(ha)16,317147

Percentage
of KBA
Protected
1

CEPF
Priority inPhase 1
No

17.

HTI-16

Lac Azuéi – Trou Caiman18.

HTI-23

Haiti

372

372

100

Yes

Haiti

6,799

6,799

100

Yes

HTI-25

Parc National Naturel deGrand Bois
Parc National Naturel Forêt
des Pins-Unité 1
Parc National Naturel La Visite

19.

HTI-2420.

Haiti

11,455

11,455

100

Yes

21.

HTI-26

Parc National Naturel Macaya

Haiti

13,486

9,938

74

Yes

22.

JAM-2

Jamaica

60,497

46,782

77

No

23.

JAM-5

Blue and John Crow
Mountains Protected National
Heritage and surroundings
Catadupa

Jamaica

15,785

1,911

12

Yes

24.

JAM-7

Cockpit Country

Jamaica

64,13925,461

40

Yes

25.

JAM-8

Dolphin Head

Jamaica

5,389

1,043

19

Yes

26.

JAM-13

Jamaica

16,013

5,611

35

Yes

27.

JAM-20Litchfield Mountain Matheson’s Run
Peckham Woods

Jamaica

239

67

28

Yes

28.

JAM-22

Portland Bight Protected Area

Jamaica

197,957

197,957

100

Yes

29.

LCA-2

Saint Lucia

7,886

7,886

100

No

30.

LCA-4

Castries and Dennery
Waterworks Reserve andMarquisMandelé Protected LandscapeSaint Lucia

2,561

417

16

Yes

31.

LCA-6

Pointe Sable

Saint Lucia

2,050

1,504

73

Yes

32.

VCT-1

Chatham Bay, Union Island

350

0

0

No

33.

VCT-3

Cumberland Forest Reserve

St. Vincent and
the Grenadines
St. Vincent and
the Grenadines

1,017

1,017

100

Yes

91

23 sites

Total CEPF Priority Area

1,174,380 1,069,699

The investment strategy gives special consideration to three sites in Barbados and Haiti (Table
13.2). These sites were prioritized under the initial phase of CEPF investment but their statusunder the new KBA standard is undetermined due to insufficient species-level data. The
investment strategy provides for the compilation of existing species data to verify their status asconfirmed KBAs.
Table 13.2 Special Consideration Data Deficient Sites
Site

Country

Land
Area (ha)Protected
Area (ha)Percentage of
KBA Protected

Notes

1

Scotland District

Barbados

5,711

104

2

2

Parc National Naturel
des Deux Mamelles
Parc National Naturel
Forêt des Pins-Unité 2

Haiti

2,265

2,265

100

Haiti

14,165

14,165100

Site currently assessed asa KBA but needs to be redelineatedInsufficient data forassessment
Insufficient data forassessment

335

Figure 13.1 Priority Sites for CEPF Investment in the Bahamas

Figure 13.2 Priority Sites and Corridors for CEPF Investment in Jamaica37

Figure 13.3 Priority Sites and Corridors for CEPF Investment in Haiti

38

Figure 13.4 Priority Sites and Corridors for CEPF Investment in the Dominican Republic

39

Figure 13.5 Priority Sites for CEPF Investment in Antigua and Barbuda, and Dominica

40

Figure 13.5 Priority Sites and Corridors for CEPF Investment in Saint Lucia, Barbados, Grenada and St
Vincent and the Grenadines

CEPF will support landscape-level conservation actions in the seven corridors listed in Table 13.3.
Each corridor includes at least one CEPF priority site.
Table 13.3 CEPF Priority Corridors in the Caribbean Islands
Corridor Name

1

Massif de la Selle –Sierra de Bahoruco –Hoya de Enriquillo
Basin Binational
Corridor

2

Cordillera Central

3

Massif de la Hotte
Highlands

4

North Coast ForestCockpit CountryBlack River Great
Morass-Central
Spinal Forest

5

Surrey County
Corridor

6

Iyanola - Castries
and Dennery
Waterworks Reserveand MarquisMandele Protected
LandscapeSaint Vincent Central
Mountain Range

7

KBAs

Country

Area (ha)CEPF Priority
in Phase 1

CEPF Priority Sites

Other KBAs

Parc National Naturel
Forêt des Pins-Unité 1;
Lac Azuei-Trou Caiman;
Parc National Naturel
La Visite; ParqueNacional Jaragua;
Parque Nacional Lago
Enriquillo e Isla
Cabritos; ParqueNacional Sierra de
Bahoruco; Refugio deVida Silvestre
Monumento Natural
Miguel Domingo Fuerte(Bahoruco Oriental)
Parque Nacional
Montaña La
Humeadora; ParqueNacional ParqueNacional Dr. Juan
Bautista Pérez (Valle
Nuevo) Reserva
Científica Ébano Verde
Parc National Naturel
de Grand Bois; Parc
National Naturel
MacayaCatadupa, Cockpit
Country, Litchfield
Mountain- Matheson’s
Run, Peckham Woods

Anse-à-Pitres;
Monumento Natural
Las Caobas; ParqueNacional Sierra de
Neyba; Reserva
Biológica Loma
Charco Azul

Haiti,
Dominican
Republic

885,067

Yes (but
geography
extended toinclude Lac
Azuei-Trou
Caiman KBA)

Parque Nacional
Armando Bermúdez;Loma Nalga de Macoy Rio Limpio ParqueNacional José delCarmen Ramírez;Dominican
Republic

777,604

Yes

Haiti

86,100No (formerly partof Massif de laHotte KBA)

Black River Great
Morass; Kellits
Camperdown; Mt.
Diablo; Point Hill;
Santa Cruz
Mountains; StephneyJohn’s Vale-Bull
Head
Bull Bay; Yallahs

Jamaica

370,405

Yes (extended
to include
Central Spinal
Forest)Jamaica

178,196

No

IyanolaSaint Lucia

31,228

No

Colonaire Forest
Reserve; Dalaway
Forest Reserve;
Kingstown Forest
Reserve; La Soufriere
National Park; Mount
Pleasant Forest
Reserve; RichmondForest Reserve

Saint
Vincent andtheGrenadines

16,711

Yes

Blue and John Crow
Mountains Protected
National Heritage andsurroundings
Castries and Dennery
Waterworks Reserveand Marquis; Mandele
Protected LandscapeCumberland Forest
ReserveCEPF investment will also address the conservation of globally threatened single-island endemic
species occurring in at least one priority site, with the aim of reversing species declines and preventing
extinctions. Globally threatened single-island endemic species occurring in Barbados and Grenada,
where no KBAs have been prioritized for investment under this strategy, will also be eligible forsupport. In total, 138 globally threatened species (75 animal and 63 plants) are prioritized for CEPF
support under the investment strategy. The strategy also prioritizes strategic conservation actions in
support of seven priority plant families with high levels of endemism and threat because of intensive
use by local populations.

13.2 Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
The thematic focus of the investment strategy is set out in Table 13.4. CEPF investment will address 19
investment priorities grouped into six strategic directions. Targets and indicative spending allocations
for each strategic direction are given in the logframe, which follows in Chapter 14.
Table 13.4 CEPF Caribbean Islands Strategic Directions and Investment Priorities
Strategic Directions
CEPF Investment Priorities
1. Improve the protection andmanagement of 33 priority sites forlong-term sustainability

1.1 Strengthen the legal protection of priority sites
1.2 Prepare and implement participatory management plans that support
broad stakeholder collaboration
1.3 Assess climate change impacts and integrate climate change
adaptation into management plans and their implementation
responses to protect ecosystem functions and build resilience
1.4 Eradicate, control or prevent further spread of invasive plants andanimals that are affecting globally threatened species populations atpriority sites

2. Increase landscape-level
connectivity and ecosystem
resilience in seven priority corridors

1.5 Update the KBA analysis to fill critical conservation planning data
gaps in Barbados and Haiti
2.1 Prepare and support implementation of participatory local andcorridor-scale land-use and watershed management plans to guide
future development and conservation efforts
2.2 Support sustainable livelihoods in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, andnature tourism that enhance ecosystem resilience and landscapelevel connectivity and deliver gender-equitable benefits, in order tomaintain the functionality of priority sites

3. Safeguard priority CriticallyEndangered and Endangered
species

2.3 Promote the adoption and scaling up of conservation best practices inthose enterprises compatible with conservation to promoteconnectivity and ecosystem services in the corridors
3.1 Pepare and implement conservation actions plans for priority CriticallyEndangered and Endangered species
3.2 Identify climate impacts and develop and implement management
plans in response to climate change impacts on priority CriticallyEndangered and Endangered species
3.3 Support assessments of high priority plant families to update national
lists and the IUCN Red List and develop conservation action plans

43Strategic Directions

CEPF Investment Priorities

4. Improve the enabling conditions
for biodiversity conservation incountries with priority sites

4.1 Support the role of civil society organizations in policy dialogue andadvocacy focused on government policies and practices that impact
priority sites
4.2 Mainstream biodiversity conservation and ecosystem service values
into development policies, projects, and plans by government and theprivate sector, with a focus on addressing major threats, such as
unsustainable agriculture, mining, tourism and infrastructuredevelopment
4.3 Establish and strengthen sustainable financing mechanisms

5. Support Caribbean civil society toconserve biodiversity by building
local, national and regional
institutional capacity and fosteringstakeholder collaboration

4.4 Build stakeholder and constituency support for the conservation ofpriority sites and priority globally threatened species through targetedcommunication and information dissemination
5.1 Strengthen CSOs’ technical knowledge and skills to implement
practical, applied biodiversity conservation actions through short-term
training in topics that will advance implementation of projects that
support CEPF priorities, based on a CSO training assessment andstrategy
5.2 Strengthen the administrative, financial, fundraising and project
management capacity of strategic CEPF civil society partners to
implement biodiversity conservation programs and activities

6. Provide strategic leadership andeffective coordination of CEPF
investment through a Regional
Implementation Team44

5.3 Support local, national and regional information exchange,
networking, mentorship, and coalition building among civil society
organizations
6.1 Build a broad constituency of civil society groups working acrossinstitutional and political boundaries to strengthen the communication
capacity of local civil society organizations in support of their mission
and to build public awareness on the importance of conservation
outcomes

14. LOGICAL FRAMEWORK FOR CEPF INVESTMENT
Global Objective
Support the conservation of
biodiversity within the global
hotspots by engaging andstrengthening the capacity ofcivil society

Goals and Indicators
Biodiversity
Goal: Improve the status of globally significant
biodiversity in critical ecosystems within hotspots

Means of Verification
Annual global impact report

Indicators:• Number of globally threatened species benefitingfrom conservation action.
• Number of hectares of Key Biodiversity Areas withimproved management.
• Number of hectares of protected areas created
and/or expanded.
• Number of hectares of production landscapes withstrengthened management of biodiversity.
• Number of protected areas with improved
management.

Protected Areas Tracking
Tool (SP1 METT)

Civil Society
Goal: Strengthen the capacity of civil society to beeffective as environmental stewards and advocates forthe conservation of globally significant biodiversity.
Indicators:• Number of CEPF grantees with improved
organizational capacity.
• Number of CEPF grantees with improved
understanding of and commitment to gender issues.
• Number of networks and partnerships that havebeen created and/or strengthened.
Human Well-being
Goal: Improve the well-being of people living in anddependent on critical ecosystems within hotspots.
Indicators:• Number of people receiving structured training.
• Number of people receiving non-cash benefits otherthan structured training.
• Number of people receiving cash benefits.
• Number of projects promoting nature-based
solutions to combat climate change.

45

Grantee final reports

Civil Society Tracking Tool
Gender Tracking Tool
CEPF project database

Important Assumptions
The main drivers of biodiversity loss
operate at local, national andregional scales and can be
influenced by conservationinterventions at these different
scales.
Civil society organizations arepresent and willing to engage inbiodiversity conservation, to partnerwith unfamiliar actors from othersectors, and to adopt innovative
approaches.

GIS remote sensing data
The capacity of civil society
organizations can be augmented
and translated into more effective
local conservation movements.
Short-term grant funding can makesignificant contributions to
overcoming the resource constraints
facing civil society organizations.
Increasing the capacity andcredibility of local civil society
organizations is likely to open
political space for theseorganizations as they become
recognized as trusted advisors(rather than causing them to beviewed as threats to vested
interests).
Some government and private
sector/corporate actors are
receptive to innovative conservation
models demonstrated by CEPF
projects and have incentives toadopt these for wider replication.

• Amount of CO2e sequestered in CEPF-supported
natural habitats.

National academic institutions
produce graduates with the skills
and perspective to respond to local
conservation challenges by working
with or within civil society
organizations.

Enabling Conditions for Conservation
Goal: Establish the conditions needed for theconservation of globally significant biodiversity.

Portfolio Objective
Engage civil society in theconservation of globallythreatened biodiversity throughtargeted investments withmaximum impact on thehighest conservation andecosystem services priorities.

Indicators:• Number of laws, regulations, and policies withconservation provisions that have been enacted oramended.
• Number of sustainable financing mechanisms thatare delivering funds for conservation.
• Number of companies that adopt biodiversity-friendly
practices.
Targets
Thirty-three KBAs covering 1,174,380 hectares havestrengthened management, as guided by sustainable
management plans.
At least 40,000 hectares of the 2,345,311 hectares
within production landscapes are under improved
management for biodiversity conservation andecosystem services.
At least five local development plans, projects orpolicies mainstream biodiversity and ecosystemservices, with a focus on tourism, mining, unsustainableagriculture and infrastructure development.

Raised local public awareness that
results from the participation ofthese organizations in conservation
issues has the potential to change
attitudes and, ultimately, behavior
towards the consumption of energy
and natural resources.
Means of Verification
Grantee and RIT progress
reports
Annual portfolio overview
reports; portfolio mid-term
and final assessment
Protected Areas Tracking
Tool (SP1 METT)

Important Assumptions
The CEPF grants portfolio will
effectively guide and coordinate
conservation action in the
Caribbean Islands Hotspot.
Stakeholder interest remains stable
or increases with respect to working
in partnership with CSOs to achieve
the ecosystem profile conservation
outcomes.
Regulatory and institutional
environment for conservation,
environmental protection, and civilsociety engagement remains stableor improves.
Political stability will facilitate theimplementation of conservation
initiatives and improve the operating
environment for civil society.
Investments by other donors will
support complementary activities
that reduce threats to priority sites
and species.

46

Intermediate Outcomes
Outcome 1. Improve theprotection and management of
33 priority sites for long-termsustainability.

Intermediate Indicators
At least 75 percent (678,044 hectares) of the 19
existing protected areas in the priority sites, totaling
904,059 hectares experience, on average, a 15
percent improvement on the Protected Area
Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool.

Means of Verification
Grantee and RIT progress
reports

At least seven (50 percent) of the 14 underprotected priority KBAs brought under new orstrengthened protection status.

Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Tracking Tool
(SP1 METT)

Climate change resilience integrated into
100 percent of management plans developed or
updated with CEPF support.

Formal legal declarations orcommunity agreements
designating new protectedareas

CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports$4,500,000.00

At least 10 participatory or collaborative
management arrangements developed orstrengthened.
Three data-deficient sites assessed as KBAs underthe 2016 Global KBA Standard.

Outcome 2. Increase
landscape-level connectivity
and ecosystem resilience inseven priority corridors.

At least five participatory local land-use orcatchment management plans developed orstrengthened to improve ecosystem services andconnectivity within conservation corridors.

$1,000,000.00

Climate change resilience integrated into 100
percent of landscape-level plans developed.
At least three conservation-based enterprises (e.g.
nature-based tourism, conservation coffee andcacao, sustainable fisheries, etc.) developed incommunities within the priority conservation
corridors.

47

Local communities are sufficiently
organized, have enough capacity
and are willing to participate inthese activities.
CSOs have adequate capacity andare interested in engaging inconservation and management of
KBAs and corridors.

Management plans andreports on management
activities
Human wellbeing monitoring
reports
KBA Global Partnership
Database
Grantee and RIT progress
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
Official land-use anddevelopment plans andpolicies covering the priority
corridors.
Integrated management plans
Private sector reports

Three businesses and/or their associations
influenced to better incorporate biodiversity
conservation into business and production
practices, strategies and policies.

Important Assumptions
Government agencies aresupportive of civil society efforts toconserve KBAs and corridors.

Decision-makers are receptive andsympathetic to conservation andsustainable development of thepriority KBAs and corridors.
Private companies in key natural
resource sectors appreciate thebusiness case for better
environmental and social practices.

Intermediate Outcomes
Outcome 3. Safeguard priority
Critically Endangered andEndangered species.

Intermediate Indicators
Conservation plans developed and implemented forat least 20 priority Critically Endangered andEndangered species.

$1,000,000.00

At least five species or species-group management
plans and programs updated to integrate climatechange responses.
IUCN Red List updated with assessments of atleast three priority plant families

Outcome 4. Improve theenabling conditions forbiodiversity conservation incountries with priority sites.

At least 50 CEPF priority species benefit fromconservation actions through CEPF-supported
management plans and their implementation.
At least 10 local, national and regional policies,
projects or plans incorporate biodiversity, climatechange and ecosystem services in the agricultural,mining, tourism and infrastructural development
sectors.

$1,000,000.00
Three small-scale climate change demonstration
projects in priority sites and conservation corridors
planned and implemented to illustrate the benefitsof biodiversity conservation and ecosystemservices for adaption and mitigation.
At least two sustainable financing mechanisms or
programs include CEPF priority sites in theirprogramming.
Three private sector demonstration projects
planned and implemented in support of biodiversity
conservation.
Awareness of, and support for, conservation issues
increased among stakeholders in least 10 priority
sites.

Means of Verification
Grantee and RIT progress
reports
CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports
IUCN Red List species
accounts

Important Assumptions
Adequate capacity to implement
species-focused conservation exists
among civil society or can be built.
Governments and international
donors remain committed to species
conservation and are able toprovide financial support for longterm programs.

Conservation action plans

Grantee and RIT progress
reports and site visits

National and regional policy
documents
Public-private partnershipagreements/MOUs/ contracts

Local, national and regional policy
environments are supportive of theintegration of biodiversity anddevelopment and a focus on priority
KBAs.
Targeted decision-makers are in aposition to influence select policies
and projects.
Capacity is sufficient and can bebuilt to enable the strategic,
targeted “informing” of decisionmakers.
National legislation includes orallows for the establishment ofsustainable financing mechanisms.
Private companies in key natural
resource sectors appreciate thebusiness case for better
environmental and social practices.
CSOs have sufficient capacity toengage in advocacy at the nationaland regional decision-making level.

48

Intermediate Outcomes
Outcome 5. Support Caribbean
civil society to conserve
biodiversity by building local,
national and regional
institutional capacity andfostering stakeholder
collaboration

Intermediate Indicators
At least 15 local CSOs demonstrate improved
performance with gender mainstreaming (at least
10 percent increase).

$1,000,000.00

Outcome 6. Provide strategic
leadership and effective
coordination of CEPF
investment through a Regional
Implementation Team
$1,500,000

At least 20 local CSOs demonstrate improved
organizational capacity (at least 10 percent
increase).

CEPF gender tracking tool

At least 20 civil society networks and alliances
enable collective responses to priority andemerging threats.

CEPF civil society
organizational capacity
tracking tool

Civil society actors are able to work
collaboratively to respond toconservation challenges.

Two innovative financing mechanisms for civilsociety sustainable funding developed.
At least 50 CSOs, including at least 40 localorganizations, actively participate in conservation
actions guided by the ecosystem profile.

RIT progress reports

Qualified organizations will apply toserve as the RIT in line with theapproved terms of reference andthe ecosystem profile.

At least 75 percent of local CSOs receiving CEPF
grants are found to have met or exceeded
expectations regarding programmatic performance.

Post-project evaluation forms

At least 2 participatory assessments areundertaken and lessons learned and best practices
from the hotspot are documented.

49

CEPF Secretariat supervision
mission reports

Important Assumptions
The operating environment for civilsociety will remain constant or
improve across the hotspot.
Key capacity limitations of CSOs
can be addressed through grantsupport.

At least 30 CSOs supported by CEPF secure
follow-up funding to promote the sustainability of
their CEPF grants.

Total Budget:

Means of Verification
Grantee and RIT progress
reports and site visits$10,000,000

CEPF Secretariat supervision
missions and monitoring

The CEPF call for proposals will
elicit appropriate proposals that
advance the goals of the ecosystemprofile.
CSOs will collaborate with eachother, government agencies, andprivate sector actors in acoordinated regional conservation
program in line with the ecosystemprofile.

15

SUSTAINABILITY

The investment strategy aims to strengthen ecosystem functionality and build resilience throughStrategic Directions 1 and 2. Within the Caribbean context, addressing climate change is an
essential element of any effort to promote biodiversity conservation. The new strategy for the
hotspot integrates climate change as a cross-cutting theme and specifically supports climatechange-focused actions through Strategic Directions 1, 2 and 3.
CEPF funding fills gaps in those areas where essential activities are not being undertaken at the
moment and complements larger funding support from multilateral and bilateral sources togovernment agencies in the region. The investment strategy actively promotes leveraging ofresources and co-financing. The emergence of environmental trust funds in CEPF-eligible
countries across the hotspot presents an important opportunity for CEPF as it seeks to support
innovative financing mechanisms under Strategic Direction 4. The CEPF Secretariat and RIT
will actively seek to build synergies with other funding sources in the region.
With its focus on sustainable livelihoods, especially under Strategic Direction 2, the investment
strategy attempts to ensure that direct users of natural resources or beneficiaries derive benefits
as part of the conservation process. The elements of the strategy that address natural resource
governance (Strategic Direction 4) and promote integrated multi-stakeholder approaches andcooperation between civil society, governments and the private sector (Strategic Directions 1, 2
and 4) reflect an appreciation of the need for efforts to be grounded in communities and owned
by stakeholders. The inclusion of gender as a cross-cutting theme further supports social equity.
The new phase of CEPF investment in the Caribbean Islands Hotspot will play a major role inincreasing the capacity of NGOs and other CSOs based in the region. Strengthening of civilsociety is a focus across all the strategic directions but is made explicit in Strategic Direction 5.
The CEPF program will use a demand-driven approach to supporting the region’s CSOs, tostrengthen their technical and organizational capacity.
The RIT’s contribution to the sustainability of the overall impact of the CEPF program
encompasses grant selection and management, as well as establishing linkages between the
program and government decision makers and regional processes. Through its grant management,
the RIT will contribute to sustainability by considering each potential project’s relevance in thelocal political and cultural context, as well as alignment with national priorities andcommitments under international conventions. Through its regional networking role, the RIT is
expected to be aware of other funding opportunities and relevant programs, and to be proactivein ensuring that grantees are involved, including through sharing information on the CEPF
program with other donors.
By helping facilitate linkages to government, the RIT will help grantees draw the attention ofdecision makers to the results and lessons learned from their projects, and demonstrate ways thatthey can contribute to government agendas. Where strategic opportunities to do so arise, the RIT
will also support grantees in their outreach to private sector entities. The RIT will contribute tosecuring additional and continuing funding for projects initiated under the CEPF program,including working with partners on innovative financing mechanisms.

50