sustainable land management practices. species are beyond predicted levels. coordination mechanism for investments in maintenance of the PA system. Inter-sectoral coordination committee established to oversee investments in PAs Average METT scores of 6 existing TPAs and 3 MPAs 53 62 METT Scorecard applied at PPG, MTR, and TE Improved capacity for planning, implementation and monitoring of co-managed strategies for threat reduction through SLM and SFM in PAs. Avg score on Capacity Development Scorecard: Q 2: 2 Q10: 1 Q 11: 1 Q 13: 2 Q 14: 0 Areas to be improved: Co-management is identified as the governance model for SLM, SFM and TPA management, but no formal mechanisms are instituted. Outdated laws, low public knowledge of the various legislation, and inadequate regulatory framework constrain enforcement. Environmental information used to support processes is unavailable, under-utilized, incomplete or out-of-date. Capacity and technological needs are, when available, obtained through external financing. Avg score on Cap Dev SC increases by at least 1 point: Q 2: 3 Q10: 2 Q 11: 2 Q 13: 3 Q 14: 1 Specific improvements: Develop and implement mechanisms for SFM, SLM and TPA management (Outcome 1). Review and update existing policies and legislation; implement site specific mgt plans for PAs; endorse an interagency collaboration mechanism for SLM. (Outcomes 1 & 2) Develop and implement a protocol that facilitates information updating, access and sharing for decision-making (Outcomes 1 & 2). Develop a capacity development strategy to augment technical skills within the resident organizations per the priorities of the NAP. GEF Capacity Development Scorecard applied at PPG, MTR and TE
Monitoring is done irregularly, with or without an adequate monitoring framework. National monitoring system with proper capacity building (Outcome 1). Outcome #1 Indicator Baseline Target Means of Verification Risks and Assumptions Establishment and effective management of new and existing Protected Areas Institutional framework for management effectiveness in and around PAs No formal National Parks Advisory Council; Forestry Division administers 8 TPAs under suboptimal conditions; Fisheries Division administers 3 MPAs. Formal establishment of a National Parks Advisory Council for TPAs and Management Committee for MPAs administering PAs, PoA. SROs Published in the Government Gazette so as to enable the TPA and MPA Strategic Management bodies to function. Assumptions: Government of Grenada adopts the Ridge to Reef Project as a key initiative for fulfilling its obligations for conservation and management of its BD so as to meet local and Global objectives. Risks: Contingency-based planning and management persists. Regulatory and legal framework for management effectiveness in and around PAs Forestry policy does not include INRM. Fisheries division does not use INRM in its administration of MPAs. No PA System Business Plan exists A finalized and approved Protected Area Forestry and Wildlife Bill with draft SROs that promote INRM practices and principles. Fisheries division applying INRM principles and practices using enhanced law and/ or regulations, within 2 years. PA System Business Plan developed and under implementation New parent legislation published in the Government gazette and with associated SROs. Expansion of protected areas system 3,711 ha of bio-diverse landscapes/seascapes formally recognized and facing multiple threats: 8 TPAs managed under suboptimal conditions and 5 mini TPAs with no management mechanism. TPAs cover 1,931 ha. 3 MPAs management suboptimal conditions 16, 111 ha of bio-diverse landscapes/seascapes formally recognized and managed effectively: 9 TPAs + 4 mini-TPAs effectively managed with legal demarcation, management plans, business plans, and adequate infrastructure in place. TPAs cover 2,931 ha. 7 MPAs managed under optimal conditions within 5 Project records: Technical reports GIS maps Project evaluation reports Planning and policy documents Tracking Tools Field assessment Assumptions: Increased support from GoG. Effective management measures adopted. Risks Unpredicted natural hazards
MPAs cover 1,780 ha. years. MPAs cover 13,180 ha. Measurable Threat Reduction: Forest cover Direct Carbon benefits Indirect Carbon benefits Mangrove, seagrass bed and coral reef areas Continuous deforestation threatens 10,012 hectares 81,652.5 tC (Direct) 322,158.3 tC (Indirect) Continuous destruction of 231 Ha of mangrove, 1301 Ha of seagrass and 5095 Ha of reef areas 10,012 hectares of forested area maintained or increased 81,652.5 tC Direct maintained or increased 322,158.3 tC Indirect maintained or increased 231 Ha of mangrove, 1301 Ha of seagrass and 5095 Ha of reef areas maintained or increased Tracking Tools applied at PPG, MTR, and TE Technical reports GIS maps Satellite imagery Field assessments Risks Unpredicted natural hazards Assumptions Consensus and interest among local stakeholders. Collaboration with Academia and Centres of excellence in data procurement and application of SLM/SFM practices Management of expanded PA network institutionalized No coral Reef resilience program (protocol) in place. No systematic SFM program in place No staff trained in planning accounting, bio principal monitoring, enforcement, fire management and Coral reef resilience program (protocol) in place within 5 years. SFM program adopted and administered in all PAs within 5 yrs. 13 PA Staff trained MMER protocol designed adopted and administered CCM measures adopted and recorded Records of staff training Training Docs. Capacity development Scorecard PA network infrastructure and services Inconsistent infrastructure and facilities and services across TPAs and MPAs. Standardized and quality infrastructure facilities and services available at all TPA and MPA units in the PA network. Field inspections Documentation and records Assumptions: Adequate investments: Entrepreneurs willing to assist and collaborate in the project.
management plan using INRM approaches. Stakeholders not engaged in community-based with respect to applying INRM practices. No systematic monitoring for water quality/quantity, sediment and pollution impacts The intersectoral watershed committee engages stakeholders to formulate community-based rules for applying INRM practices within 2-3 yrs. A water quality/quantity protocol set in place within Year 2. committee meetings. Water quality and quantity protocol Updated National Forest Policy document. watershed management plan. Collaboration is ongoing between and among competent authorities relevant to the exercise. Community participation in SFM. No involvement of local stakeholders in initiatives to review and update the National Forest Policy (NFP) to consider carbon sequestration. Community engaged in updating of NFP; and SROs promulgated by Year 3. Project records of engagements between and among stakeholders. Updated NFP and related SROs Direct carbon benefits through avoided deforestation; forest enrichment; and planting in the Beausejour watershed. 9,613tC sequestration by 3337.3 ha. of private forest 4,320tC sequestration by150ha increase in forest cover with removal of 40ha of bamboo 0 tC from avoided deforestation and sustainable planting products 9,613tC sequestration maintained in private forests 4320tC sequestration maintained At least 26066tC sequestration from avoided deforestation and sustainable planting products -Tracking Tools -Technical reports Assumptions: Competent Authorities are consistent with M&E for multiple impacts. Risks: Failures in the M&E plan. Turbidity Levels/ sediment buildup at two MPAs downstream of Beausejour No turbidity index available; TBD within first 6 months of project 15% reduction in turbidity -Turbidity and soil accumulation - Monitor and measurement protocol. UN FAO LADA tools. Pesticide and fertilizer levels at two MPAs downstream of Beausejour. Grand Anse MPA: TBD within the first 6 months of project Moliniere/ Beausejour MPA: TBD within the first 6 months Grand Anse MPA: 15% reduction Moliniere/ Beausejour MPA: 15% reduction Water quality measurement using protocol for Pesticide and fertilizer (Agro-chemicals) in
of project seawater at MPAs Application of gender and SLM and SFM practices in 6 communities (Beausejour, Happy Hill, Granville Vale, New Hampshire, Annandale and Vendome) No ongoing and systematic training: No agricultural production program implemented within the watershed. No rangeland management program implemented within the watershed. No forest management program implemented within the watershed. 6 villages trained in alternative livelihoods related to BD, SFM/SLM, and CC issues: A sustainable agricultural biodiversity program implemented by Year 3 A sustainable rangeland management program implemented by Year 3 SFM program involving forest enrichment with species so as to ensure SLM/SFM practices applied by Year 3 Landscape management plans in place Technical reports Field verification notes Tracking Tools Capacity Development scorecard Assumptions: Optimal uptake by farmers and land owners. Innovative alternatives accepted to replace bamboo as a tool to avoid land slippage. Due recognition of gender equity is emphasized within all delivery systems Impact of Soil erosion/stability on household incomes of famers within the Beausejour watershed No existing estimates of soil loss or land soil accumulation levels available. TBD within first 6 months of project No statistics on farmer income available. Initial survey to establish baseline to be conducted during Year 1 15% reduction of soil loss 25% increase in weekly income per farmer. Field inspections/ UNFAO-LADA tools: -sediment traps -Soil Accumulation measurements -Suspended sediments -Comparative household surveys of farming communities (RAS method) Assumptions: No serious CC impacts Farmers uptake of initiates to enhance profitability of their farms Risk: Lack of cooperation by farmers. Private profitability is not highlighted sufficiently. Education and awareness levels No education and awareness program Public awareness campaign developed and implemented Project records Farmer/landowner engagement records Tracking Tools Assumptions: Emphasis on education and awareness.
SECTION III. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORK PLAN AWARD ID 5069 PROJECT ID 5087 AWARD TITLE GRENADA: Ridge to Reef approach for protecting biodiversity and ecosystems functions within and around protected area BUSINESS UNIT Project Title: Implementing a ridge to reef approach to protecting biodiversity and ecosystems functions within and around protected areas in Grenada PIMS NO: 5087 Implementing partner (executing agency) Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. GEF Outcome/ Atlas Activity Responsible Party Source of Funds ERP/ATLAS Budget Description/ Input Atlas Code Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5 TOTAL Budget Notes 1 Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (MoA) 62000 International consultants 71200 26,500 26,500 1 Local Consultants 71300 34,976 48,429 69,953 34,976 80,715 269,049 2 Contractual Services - Individual 71400 24,832 24,832 24,832 24,832 24,832 124,160 3 Travel 71600 5,405 2,000 7,405 4 Contractual Services - Companies 72100 19,805 12,815 61,500 83,880 178,000 5 Equipment and furniture 72200 327,368 155,615 69,163 23,054 575,200 6 Supplies 72500 500 250 250 250 250 1,500 7 Premises Alterations 73200 298,584 74,116 372,700 8 Professional Services 74100 3,000 3,000 9 Audio- Visual print and production cost 74200 18,763 67,011 6,701 6,635 1,340 100,450 10
32 74599 Estimated costs of Direct Project Services requested by the GoG to UNDP for executing services (procurement; travel etc) and as requested by the GoG through the Letter of Agreement (Annex 13). Direct project service costs will be charged at the end of each year based on the UNDP Universal Pricelist (UPL) or the actual corresponding service cost. The amounts indicated here are estimations based on the services indicated in Annex 13, however as part of annual project operational planning the direct project services to be requested during that calendar year would be defined and the amount included in the yearly budgets. As noted these costs would be charged based on actual services provided at the end of the year and would be reported to the implementing partners (GoG). 58,800
UNDP Sub-Regional Office IW (within 2 months after IW) Measurement of Means of Verification of project results • Project Coordinator (with support/advice from UNDP/GEF RTA) will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members To be determined during the initial phase of implementation of the project and the IW Start, mid-point, and end of project Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress on output and implementation Oversight by Project Coordinator Project team None Annually prior to ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans ARR/PIR Project Coordinator and Team UNDP Sub-Regional Office UNDP GEF None Annually Periodic status/ progress reports Project Coordinator and Team None Quarterly Tripartite Committee Reviews and Reports GoG counterparts UNDP/GEF None Annually, upon receipt of APR/PIR Steering Committee/Board Meetings Project Coordinator UNCP-Sub-Regional Office GoG representatives 2,500 (GEF) 3,000 (CoF) Following IW, and subsequently at least twice per year Mid-term Review, including update of METT and ESSP Project Coordinator and Team UNDP-Sub-Regional Office UNDP/GEF RCU External Consultants (evaluation team) Indicative cost: 32,468 At the mid-point of project implementation. Final Evaluation, including final METT and ESSP Project Coordinator and Team UNDP-Sub-Regional Office UNDP/GEF RCU External Consultants (evaluation team) Indicative cost : 40,468 At least three months before the end of project implementation Project Terminal Report Project Team UNDP-Sub-Regional Office None At least three months before the end of the project Lessons learned Project Coordinator and Team UNDP-GEF RCU (suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc.) 5,000 (GEF) 4,000 (CoF) Indicative Cost Cost:US$9,000 Yearly Audit UNDP-Sub-Regional Office Project Coordinator and Team Auditors 15,000 (indicative cost per year: 3,000) Annually Visits to field sites UNDP CO For GEF supported Annually