Table 3: Project Stakeholders Stakeholder Interests in the Project Stakeholder Influence in the Project Project Effect(s) on Stakeholder CPPS Comisión Permanente del Pacifico Sur (Southern Pacific Permanent Commission) A project implementing partner with CI and UNESCO, the CPPS leads the development of the regional mangrove strategy (the central thematic element of Component 1) A key platform at the regional level, based in Guayaquil, Ecuador. Three of four countries in the project (Ecuador, Colombia and Panama) are contracting parties to this regional body with Costa Rica engaging as a participating non-CPPS party in the mangrove initiative. The project will help facilitate CPPS as a strategic agency and host of a Mangrove Technical Working Group within which other stakeholders will provide inputs towards the finalization/ implementation of regional strategy. National Ministries of Environment (and other relevant national level ministries and authorities) Regional strategy development and implementation National and local mangrove strategy and policy strengthening We will engage with the Ministries of each country responsible for topics related to the environment or aquatic resources and those with authority on protected areas. These actors will contribute to the regional mangrove strategy within the framework of the Mangrove Technical Working Group created within CPPS. At the national level, they are the main leaders of their respective national mangrove strategy creation, revision and implementation, as well as leaders for the development of stronger regulations, national enforcement and incentives conducive to mangrove conservation. Support in the development of effective national mangrove resource management plans and policies within a regional framework through directed assessments, dialogue, interchange of technology and experiences. Conservation and protected area administrators. Coastal and watershed coastal and land planners/managers. Implementation of field conservation action National and local mangrove strategy and policy strengthening Administrators will be key actors in the development of mangrove management plans and are key actors encouraging and maintaining viable networks of protected areas. Similarly the managers, planners and other relevant administrators for the coastal This projects aims at improving the management of mangroves areas in and/or near existing protected areas rich in mangrove ecosystems and thus through active participation of representatives and
Inception workshop Report Within one month of inception workshop Project Team CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $4,592 (Tech staff: 4,592 [15 d].) Project Results Monitoring Plan (Objective, Outcomes and Outputs) Annually (data on indicators will be gathered according to monitoring plan schedule shown on Appendix IV) Project Team CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $12,245 (Tech staff: $12,245 [40 d .) GEF Focal Area Tracking Tools i) Project development phase; ii) prior to project mid-term evaluation; and iii) project completion Project Team Executing Agency CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $3,061 (Tech staff: $3,061 [10 d]). Project Steering Committee Meetings Annually Project Team Executing Agency CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $6,122 (Tech staff: $6,122 [20 d]). CI-GEF Project Agency Field Supervision Missions Approximately annual visits CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $6,122 (Tech staff: $6,122 [20 d]). Quarterly Progress Reporting Quarterly Project Team Executing Agency TOTAL: $26,309 (Tech staff: $12,245 [40 d]. Ops staff: $14,064 [28 d]). Annual Project Implementation Report (PIR) Annually for year ending June 30 Project Team Executing Agency CI-GEF PA TOTAL: $10714 (Tech staff: $10,714 [35 d]). Project Completion Report Upon project operational closure Project Team Executing Agency TOTAL: $15,162 (Tech staff: $6,122 [20 d]. Other PMC: $9,040). Independent Terminal Evaluation CI Evaluation Office Project Team CI-GEF PA Evaluation field mission within three months prior to project completion. TOTAL: $24,592 (Tech staff: $4,592 [15 d]. Other PMC: $20,000). Lessons Learned and Knowledge Generation Project Team Executing Agency CI-GEF PA At least annually TOTAL: $12,184 (Tech staff: $9,184 [30 d]). Other PMC: $3,000) Financial Statements Audit Executing Agency CI-GEF PA Annually TOTAL: $20,046 (Ops staff: $10,046
Colombia: Already prohibits the deforestation of mangrove resources and has granted certain concessionary rights to communities but has not yet developed a specific national mangrove action plan. Ecuador: Currently drafting a first national mangrove action plan. MAE has implemented a successful concession program known as "sociomanglares" which would benefit from a viable long term financing mechanism. Ecuador National Plan for Well-Being (Buen vivir). Outcome 2.2.: At least two ETPS countries have passed stronger regulations and incentives conducive to mangrove conservation. Outcome Indicator 2.2.: # of countries with stronger regulations or incentives that improve mangrove conservation underway and established at the national level by Y2Q4. Base-Line 2.2.: Existing regulations and their effective implementation vary between ETPS country: Costa Rica: Forest Law 7575 (1996) outlawed all mangrove extraction and suspended all licensing for additional shrimp aquaculture, but does not yet consider land-use practice affecting upstream watershed processes. Uses are restricted to tourism, education and investigation complicating management in historically fished areas. Panamá: General Environmental Law No. 41 (1998) and recent resolutions (2008) require special permits with fines for any use that could affect mangroves. Unfortunately urban development approved in 2011 Target 2.2.: National threat assessment exercises and trans-boundary knowledge exchanges lead to more effective regulations governing ridge-to-reef processes impacting mangrove areas in at least two of the ETPS countries. Changes in policy and national sustainable development programs act to reduce the likelihood of continued mangrove degradation, encouraging instead reforestation. Positive effects of integrated planning propagate to local scales. This provides more effective nursery habitat, food security, water quality and coastal defenses are bolstered. Communities within and around the resource shift towards sustainable mangrove based livelihoods with social Output 2.2.1: A national mangrove policy and threat assessment for each ETPS country to orient economic valuation work, informs policy gaps, and identifies outreach needs and priorities in each ETPS country, completed by Y1Q4. Output Indicator 2.2.1.: # of ETPS countries with an updated (post PPG) mangrove base-line, national policy and threat assessment by Y1Q4. Output 2.2.2.: Legislation passed to strengthen the protection of mangroves in at least two ETPS countries completed by Y2Q4. Output Indicator 2.2.2.:
resulted in the destruction of extensive mangrove areas, including in Ramsar listed wetlands. Colombia: Amended Resolution 1602 (1996) specifically outlaws mangrove destruction in all national provinces and require licenses for any activities that could negatively affect mangroves. Practical application though is limited across high poverty communities along the Pacific coast where deforestation rates are highest. Law 1450 (2011) under the National Development Plan later prohibited mining and aquaculture industries in mangrove systems. A further mangrove specific resolution is planned by MADS for 2015. Ecuador: Resolution 56 establishes a fine of $89,273 USD per hectare for mangrove destruction. Concessions agreements across ~50K ha of mangrove have been granted to local communities over the last 5 years. and economic benefits that improve community well-being. Targets for national planning discussed with local authorities during the PPG will be confirmed during project These included: Clarified tenure and use rights for local communities; Improved upstream watershed management; Stricter pollution controls; Mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments; Mangrove climate adaptation criteria in national plans; National incentive schemes for effective management; A financial sustainability mechanism for concession programs; Strengthening of marine protected networks and biological corridors; More stringent fines for illegal mangrove destruction. # of new policies containing elements attributable to the project national assessment exercises. Component 3: Local conservation action. Outcome 3.1.: At least two key mangrove ecosystems have updated management plans and/or new local development plans consistent with Base-Line 3.1.: The demonstration sites in this project are adjacent to communities for which management plans are being developed or improved: Target 3.1.: Local policy and management plans are strengthened in each site and made consistent with national plans and the regional mangrove strategy in Output 3.1.1.: At least two local management plans and/or local development plans for priority mangrove sites are formally ratified by local authorities by Y2Q4.
developing alternatives that favor the sustainable use and recovery of their mangrove resources. country by Y2Q4. Outcome 3.4.: At least two demonstration projects that provide incentives and/or that create business opportunities associated with the conservation and sustainable use of mangroves initiated in at least two selected sites by Y2Q4. Outcome Indicator 3.4.: # of demonstration projects successfully implemented in high priority mangrove conservation areas. Base-Line 3.4.: The project partners do not have existing demonstration projects for mangrove sustainable use and conservation at the selected project sites. Target 3.4.: The country level exchange of experiences and technical fora developed in the project (e.g. the ecosystem services evaluations, Blue Forests methodologies etc.) stimulate at least 2 demonstration projects designed to promote the conservation and sustainable use of mangrove resources. At least two sites are selected for these projects on the basis of feasibility for implementation and their potential return for conservation and associated societies. Successful examples improve the grass-roots advocacy for sustainable livelihoods locally and potentially amplify the benefits of similar practices when adapted to adjacent areas and regions. A list of potential demonstration projects considered for each of the four local sites is given in Section 4B. Output 3.4.1.: Local associations in at least two sites actively participate and commit to demonstration projects by Y1Q4. Output Indicator 3.4.1.: MOUs with local associations that outline commitments to participate in mangrove conservation and restoration activities signed by Y1Q3. Output 3.4.2.: Local stakeholders participating in demonstration projects increased by 20% over the project start-up baseline by Y2Q4. Output Indicator 3.4.2.: % increase in number of stakeholders (and/or their time invested) for each demonstration project between Y1Q4 and Y2Q4.
Output 2.2.2.: Mangrove friendly legislation passed in at least 2 ETPS countries. X Outcome 3.1.: At least 2 mangrove ecosystems benefit from project informed improved site level planning X Output 3.1.1.: At least 2 site level management or development plans X Outcome 3.2.: Economic evaluation tools and methodologies tested in at least 2 ETPS countries at demonstration sites X Output 3.2.1.: Final report for economic evaluation of ecosystem goods and services from at least 2 project sites X X X Output 3.2.2.: Outreach summary document for tools to decision makers X Output 3.2.2.: Multi-scale communication of project mangrove field conservation tools and outcomes X Outcome 3.3.: Stakeholder outreach and capacity building X Output 3.3.1.: At least 2 training events per ETPS country X X X X X X Outcome 3.4.: At least 2 demonstration projects successfully implemented in at least 2 sites X Output 3.4.1.: Commitment of local actors to conservation and restoration activities X Output 3.4.2.: Increased (>20%) stakeholder participation in mangrove conservation incentives. X
Outcome Indicator 3.1.: # of site level management or local development plans generated with stakeholders directly and indirectly as a result of project developments. % of site level plans developed with stakeholders CI field team updates and revision of local policy documents Zero new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Malaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Annual reporting CI ETPS country teams Output Indicator 3.1.1.: # of improved site level management plans or local development plans in effect by Y2Q4 and/or % completion. # site level plans in effect by project end, or their % completion CI field team updates and revision of local policy documents Zero new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Malaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Annual reporting CI ETPS country teams Outcome Indicator 3.2.: # of GEF-UNEP Blue Forests method and/or analogous economic evaluations and tools developed and presented to project stakeholders. # stakeholders and # different stakeholder groups that have access to tools and evaluations CI-Global Marine project reports Zero new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Malaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Quarterly reporting CI- Global Marine with support from CI-Costa Rica and CI-Ecuador Output Indicator 3.2.1.: # of completed site studies presented to stakeholders by Y2Q1. # sites tested / evaluated with BF and analogous methods CI-Global Marine project reports Zero project sites evaluated at startup Gulf of Nicoya (Costa Rica), Gulf of Guayaquil (Ecuador) Quarterly reporting CI- Global Marine with support from CI-Costa Rica and CI-Ecuador
Outcome Indicator 3.4.: # of demonstration projects successfully implemented in high priority mangrove conservation areas. # site level plans developed with stakeholders CI field team updates and revision of local policy documents No new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Málaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Annual reporting CI ETPS country teams Output Indicator 3.4.1.: MOUs with local associations that outline commitments to participate in mangrove conservation and restoration activities signed by Y1Q3. # and % of agreements implemented successfully as conservation and restoration actions. CI field team updates and revision of local policy documents No new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Málaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Annual reporting CI ETPS country teams Output Indicator 3.4.2.: % increase in number of stakeholders (and/or their time invested) for each demonstration project between Y1Q4 and Y2Q4. # site level plans developed with stakeholders Each site demonstration project will monitor stakeholder participation. No new site level plans at start of project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Málaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Annual reporting CI ETPS country teams Safeguard Plans: SEP-1: Proportion of relevant stakeholder institutions/ groups identified , approached and involved in the project during the PPG Phase also involved in the Start-up phase of the Full Project (August - October 2015) and by project end.
# IP and ADC communities/ project area Evaluate project success (formally or informally) with involved IP and ADC leaders No prior project activities in area Bahia Malaga, Colombia Per local demonstration project CI-Colombia IPP-2: Level of compliance of project with established approach protocols for Colombian Indigenous Peoples and/or Afro-Colombian communities in the Bahia Malaga region. % compliance by community The 10 steps FPIC toolbox will be used to follow process on a 10 point scale (see IPP Appendix VI[b]). Early approaches through CVC late PPG phase. Bahia Malaga, Colombia Per local demonstration project CI-Colombia PRFAR-1: Number of individuals, groups, or communities that adopt voluntary incentive agreements or concessions in exchange for an altered level of access to mangrove resources as a result of the project (gender disaggregated). # individuals; # groups; # communities/ country Project team interviews and results of demonstration projects. None at project Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Malaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Yearly CI-country field teams PFRAR-2: Number of individuals, groups or communities with involuntarily restrictions to mangrove resources imposed as a result of the project. # individuals; # groups; # communities/ country Field teams will canvas communities in study sites. None Chira (Costa Rica), David (Panamá), Bahía Malaga (Colombia), El Morro (Ecuador) Yearly CI-country field teams