The World Bank Group $690,000 Agreed by (Government): Date/Month/Year: NAME: Signature Agreed by (Executing Entity/Implementing Partner): Date/Month/Year: NAME: Signature Agreed by UNDP: Date/Month/Year: NAME: Signature Table of Contents
Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget USD Excluding project team staff time Time frame Inception Workshop and Report Project Coordinator UNDP CO, UNDP GEF Indicative cost: 4,000 Within first two months of project start up Measurement of Means of Verification of project results. UNDP GEF RTA/Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members. To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop. Start, mid and end of project (during evaluation cycle) and annually when required. Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress on output and implementation Oversight by Project Coordinator Project team To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation. Annually prior to PIR and to the definition of annual work plans PIR Project Coordinator and team UNDP CO UNDP RTA UNDP GEF None Annually Periodic status/ progress reports Project Coordinator and team None Quarterly Mid-term Review Project Coordinator and team UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: 27,400 At the mid-point of project implementation. Terminal Evaluation Project Coordinator and team, UNDP CO UNDP RCU External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Indicative cost: 27,400 At least three months before the end of project implementation Lessons learned Project Coordinator and Team GEF RCU (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc.) Indicative cost: 4,000 (1,000/year) Yearly Technical reports Project Coordinator and Team Hired consultants as needed Indicative cost: 4,000 To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO Project Terminal Report Project Coordinator and team UNDP CO 0 At least three months before the end of the project Audit UNDP CO Project Coordinator and team Indicative cost per year: 3,750 (Total: 15,000) Yearly Visits to field sites UNDP CO UNDP RCU and PSC (as appropriate) Government representatives For GEF supported projects, paid from IA fees and operational budget Yearly TOTAL indicative COST Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses USD 81,800
10 Level of poaching recorded in CNP and its buffer zones per year, using as proxy indicators Campbell's mona monkey or “Macaco Mona” (Cercopithecus (mona) campbelli ) Bay duiker or “Cabra de mato” (Cephalophus dorsalis) Bushbuck or “Gazela” (Tragelaphus scriptus) Crested porcupine or “Porco espinho (Hystrix cristata) Warthogs or “Porco de Mato” (Phacochoerus africanus) The final list of species to be considered and the baseline values will be established during the first year of project implementation Target values will be established during the first year of project implementation PA Monitoring, control, and surveillance reports Databases on seizures, forfeitures and sanctions, 11 Number (or size) of wildlife populations recorded in CNP, to include at least Leopard (Panthera pardus) West African Manatee or “Pis-Bus/Manatim” (Trichechus senegalensis) West African Red Colobus or “Macaco Fidalgo vermelho” (Piliocolobus badius temminckii) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius) Buffalo (Syncerus caffer) The final list of species to be considered and the baseline values will be established during the first year of project implementation Target values will be established during the first year of project implementation Robust wildlife census data NP annual reports 12 Number of staff (including women) from IBAP, DGFF, local community members trained for effective oversight of land use and threat reduction in PA buffer zones 0 At least 50 Data bases with records of the training events Project monitoring and evaluation reports: technical reports, PIR, mid-term and final evaluation reports Effective coordination and agreement among national and local government officials (IBAP and DGF) for the development of strategies for the effective management of viable PA buffer zones and adjacent areas. Local communities living within an adjacent to the NP willing to implementing innovative economic activities. 13 Existence of PA and buffer zone management bodies which involve key stakeholders: IBAP, DGFF, and local stakeholders (community councils, CSOs, NGOs) No (Existence of CNP management council but does not address management in buffers zones) Yes of understanding Data bases with records of the training events
easily understand the rules and its implications. 2.2 Define type of fund, e.g. endowment, sinking, revolving fund and document It should be clearly stated which type or any mixture of it will be established. Therefore it is important to quantity and quality demand of financial resources and match it with the different types of financial instruments, for some chunk of expenses an endowment fund might be the matching instruments for other activities a sinking fund or revolving fund. Does the feasibility study clearly distinguish between these types? The endowment option is the most advanced and the main reason to establish the fund. Though there is not exclusivity for this instrument as a fund can administer several business lines which diversify risk and investors and can respond to various funding needs requiring different products. So far neither sinking fund capital nor revolving fund demand has been quantified. It is not clear whether the fund per se has the purpose of overall donor/government coordination or not. 2.3 Conduct Feasibility study including viability analysis addressing eligibility, asset management, cofinancing The feasibility study for the establishment of a new or existing fund is to be conducted by an experienced expert and should ascertain that GEF eligibility criteria (see below), are fulfilled, adequate operational and administrative requirements are satisfied as well as a functioning and effective governance structure in place. The design of asset management needs to ensure security of the assets from invasion, currency devaluation and other investment risk The study should establish cofinancing targets based on the previously established capital targets. No complete feasibility study has been conducted, but bits and pieces separately. The fund handbook for example defines the operational and financial procedures, the Memorandum of the association defines the governance structures, the financial needs assessment the financial requirements. Asset management has not been addressed so far and this needs to be done as a selling point for investors. As said before cofinancing targeting has to be done as transparently as possible because it is not expected that professional investors buy in into "lump sum" figures not knowing where they were derived from.
5. Protected Area Name of Protected Area Joao Vieira e Poilão Marine Protected Area Is this a new protected area? 0 Yes = 1, No = 0 Area in Hectares 49,500 Please specify biome type Global designation or priority lists Reserva Biosfera (E.g., Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage site, Ramsar site, WWF Global 2000, etc.) Local Designation of Protected Area Marine Protected Area and Community Reserve (E.g, indigenous reserve, private reserve, etc.) IUCN Category 2 1: Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection 2: National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation 3: Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features 4: Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention 5: Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation 6: Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems Objective 1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems
2: Medium 3: High 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 2.1a Drug cultivation - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 3. Energy production and mining within a protected area Threats from production of non-biological resources 3.1 Oil and gas drilling - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 3.2 Mining and quarrying - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.4 Flight paths - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources
Note: Please complete the management effectiveness tracking tool for EACH protected area that is the target of the GEF intervention and create a new worksheet for each. Structure and content of the Tracking Tool - Objective 1. Section II: The Tracking Tool has two main sections: datasheets and assessment form. Both sections should be completed. 1. Datasheets: the data sheet comprises of two separate sections: ü Data sheet 1: records details of the assessment and some basic information about the site, such as name, size and location etc. ü Data sheet 2: provides a generic list of threats which protected areas can face. On this data sheet the assessors are asked to identify threats and rank their impact on the protected area. 2. Assessment Form: the assessment is structured around 30 questions presented in table format which includes three columns for recording details of the assessment, all of which should be completed. Important: Please read the Guidelines posted on the GEF website before entering your data Data Sheet 1: Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites Please indicate your answer here Notes Name, affiliation and contact details for person responsible for completing the METT (email etc.) Honorio Fernandes Pereira Director do PNLC utomb60@yahoo.com.br Date assessment carried out 06/15/2012 Month DD, YYYY (e.g., May 12, 2010) Name of protected area Lagoa de Cufada National Park (LCNP) WDPA site code (these codes can be found on 33048 Designations(please choose 1-3) 2 1: National 2: IUCN Category 3: International (please complete lines 35-69 as necessary ) Country Guinea-Bissau Location of protected area (province and if possible map reference) 11º 34´00 - 11º 55´06 N /14º 49´00 - 15º 16´00 W Date of establishment December 12th, 2007 Ownership details (please choose 1-4) 1 1: State 2: Private 3: Community 4: Other Management Authority Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (IBAP) Size of protected area (ha) 89,000 Number of Permanent staff 13
7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.4 Garbage and solid waste - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.5 Air-borne pollutants - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. 10.1 Volcanoes - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration - 0: N/A 1: Low
it is not directed towards the needs of protected area management 3:There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, which is relevant to management needs Comments and Next Steps 12. Resource management: Is active resource management being undertaken? 2 0: Active resource management is not being undertaken 1: Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented 2: Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed 3: Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented Comments and Next Steps 13. Staff numbers: Are there enough people employed to manage the protected area? 2 0: There are no staff 1: Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 2: Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 3: Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area Comments and Next Steps 14. Staff training: Are staff adequately trained to fulfill management objectives? 2 0: Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 1: Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 2: Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully achieve the objectives of management 3: Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the protected area Comments and Next Steps 15. Current budget: Is the current budget sufficient? 2 0: There is no budget for management of the protected area 1: The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage
2: Medium 3: High 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.4 Flight paths - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
2: Medium 3: High 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High
4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 4.4 Flight paths 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism 2 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas 1 0: N/A 1: Low
8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.4 Garbage and solid waste 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.5 Air-borne pollutants 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10. Geological events
1: There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation 2: There is contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation 3: There is regular contact between managers and neighbouring official or corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management Comments and Next Steps 23. Indigenous people: Do indigenous and traditional peoples resident or regularly using the protected area have input to management decisions? 3 0: Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area 1: Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct role in management 2: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved 3: Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management Comments and Next Steps 24. Local communities: Do local communities resident or near the protected area have input to management decisions? 3 0: Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of the protected area 1: Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management but no direct role in management 2: Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved 3: Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management Comments and Next Steps 24 a. Impact on communities: There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers 1 0: No 1: Yes Comments and Next Steps
2: Medium 3: High 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.4 Garbage and solid waste - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.5 Air-borne pollutants - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc) - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. 10.1 Volcanoes - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes) 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation
11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration 1 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.2 Droughts - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.3 Temperature extremes - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 11.4 Storms and flooding - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 12. Specific cultural and social threats 12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc - 0: N/A 1: Low 2: Medium 3: High Assessment Form 1. Legal status: Does the protected area have legal status (or in the case of private reserves is covered by a covenant or similar)? 3 0: The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 1: There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun 2: The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant)
2: Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes) 3: Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc Comments and Next Steps 6. Protected area boundary demarcation: Is the boundary known and demarcated? 2 0: The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority or local residents/neighbouring land users 1: The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but is not known by local residents/neighbouring land users 2: The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users but is not appropriately demarcated 3: The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority and local residents/neighbouring land users and is appropriately demarcated Comments and Next Steps 7. Management plan: Is there a management plan and is it being implemented? 3 0: There is no management plan for the protected area 1: A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being implemented 2: A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because of funding constraints or other problems 3: A management plan exists and is being implemented Comments and Next Steps 7.a Planning process: The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to influence the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes Comments and Next Steps 7.b Planning process: There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating of the management plan 1 0: No 1: Yes Comments and Next Steps 7.c Planning process: The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated into planning 1 0: No 1: Yes
Comments and Next Steps 16. Security of budget: Is the budget secure? 1 0: There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding 1: There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function adequately without outside funding 2: There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular of the protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding 3: There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs Comments and Next Steps 17. Management of budget: Is the budget managed to meet critical management needs? 2 0: Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness (e.g. late release of budget in financial year) 1: Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 2: Budget management is adequate but could be improved 3: Budget management is excellent and meets management needs Comments and Next Steps 18. Equipment: Is equipment sufficient for management needs? 2 0: There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 1: There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for most management needs 2: There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain management 3: There are adequate equipment and facilities Comments and Next Steps 19. Maintenance of equipment: Is equipment adequately maintained? 2 0: There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 1: There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities 2: There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities 3: Equipment and facilities are well maintained Comments and Next Steps 20. Education and awareness: Is there a planned education programme linked to the objectives and needs? 2 0: There is no education and awareness programme 1: There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme 2: There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly meets needs and could be improved