Financing Plan (In Us$) s5

REQUEST FOR CEO ENDORSEMENT/APPROVAL PROJECT TYPE: FULL-SIZED PROJECT THE GEF TRUST FUND

Submission Date: 7 March 2008 Re-submission Date: PART I: PROJECT INFORMATION Expected Calendar GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 1032 Milestones Dates GEF AGENCY PROJECT ID: 2193 Work Program (for November 2007 COUNTRY(IES): Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, FSP) Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Grenada, GEF Agency April 2008 Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, St. Kitts and Approval Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago Implementation June 2008 PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Management of the Shared Living Marine Resources of Start the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions Mid-term Review May 2010 GEF AGENCY(IES): UNDP (if planned) Implementation OTHER EXECUTING PARTNER(S): UNOPS, IOC-UNESCO May 2012 GEF FOCAL AREA(S): Full-sized ProjectInternational Waters Completion GEF-4 STRATEGIC PROGRAM(S): SP1

A. PROJECT FRAMEWORK Project Objective: Sustainable management of the shared living marine resources of the Caribbean LME and adjacent areas through an ecosystem-based management approach that will meet the WSSD target for sustainable fisheries Indicative GEF Indicative Co- Project Expected Expected Outputs Finan financing* Total ($) Components Outcomes cing* ($) % ($) % 1. Analysis of TA Agreement on Continued TDA development through gap- 1.91 12.7 13.1 87.3 15.03 transboundary LMR management filling activities, including: issues relating as a priority TB - comprehensive and integrated assessments to LMR issue and of root and underlying causes driving management determination of resource depletion and affecting ecosystem immediate/root health presented in causal chain analysis causes of depleted frameworks; and, fisheries - an environmental and fisheries baseline captured in an information management system to be used to target/develop improvement efforts & governance decisions

Operational Information Management System 2.Develop- TA Agreement at a A Strategic Action Programme (SAP) 2.05 17.1 9.9 82.8 11.95 ment and regional level on developed and endorsed identification management goals/ Strengthened regional governance framework of Reforms mechanisms and developed based on agreed long-term and reforms/investment environmental status targets Investments s to provide for the for sustainability of Governance policy cycles strengthened at the Management CLME LMRs sub-regional level for selected fisheries of Shared based on the Partnership agreements between fishing Living WSSD targets and authorities, private sector and Resources the ecosystem universities/research institutions to improve based management fisheries data and knowledge approach Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for SAP implementation, CLME environmental status and governance established

CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 1

3. Targeted TA Innovative 1. Model for sustainable spiny lobster 2.38 10.4 20.47 89.6 22.85 projects aimed management/ fisheries sub-regional management plan based at governance models on local self governance site-specific trials strengthening for shared fisheries developed the policy that adapt to cycle and early ecosystem and geo- Full register of lobster fishermen and SAP political realities, merchants and knowledge of markets implementa- and can be readily tion replicated in other Fishery data collection records improved with regions (demo increased returns and improved measurement projects to be criteria (over the short project period executed by UNEP observable improvement in the stock is and FAO) unlikely)

Agreement on a sub-regional Spiny Lobster fishery management plans with the creation of fishery councils which has been ground- truthed at the local and national levels Agreements formulated between fishermen councils and merchants to ensure sustainable fishery Enforcement arrangements agreed and implemented at the local level Replicability plan for spiny lobster fisheries sub-regional management plan developed for the region and validated 2. Models for reef fishery governance based on an ecosystem approach and incorporating the concept of fish refuges developed and ground-truthed at three sites with the aim to increase area of reef under marine management area status by 50% (Seaflower MPA, Pedro Bank and N.W. Hispaniola) Fishery councils established with broad stakeholder involvement including fishermen, fish merchants, tourism industry, community groups, scientists and local government stakeholders. Comprehensive baselines created, including the identification of indicator species of environment health, sensitive areas and exploitable, over-exploited fish stocks and review of fishing practices and markets. Improved fish catch data including increased returns and measured parameters and environmental status monitoring programme established. Area management plans agreed including zoning, close seasons, size limits and quotas supported by a clear decision framework with threshold values identified. Improved compliance on existing fishery management regulations and thorough review of enforcement mechanisms at selected sites

4. Project 0.66 13.9 4.09 86.1 4.75 management Total project 7.0 12.8 47.59 87.2 54.59 costs * List the $ by project components. The percentage is the share of GEF and Co-financing respectively to the total amount for the component.

B. FINANCING PLAN SUMMARY FOR THE PROJECT ($) Total at CEO For the record: Project Preparation* Project Agency Fee Endorsement Total at PIF GEF 718,836 7,008,116 779,884 8,506,836 8,506,836 Co-financing 213,000 47,591,111 47,804,111 49,550,000 Total 931,836 54,599,227 779,884 56,310,947 58,056,836 * Prior to GEF 4, preparatory funds were approved for a total of $18,836 for the PDF-A and $700,000 for the PDF-B.

C. SOURCES OF CONFIRMED CO-FINANCING , including co-financing for project preparation for both the PDFs and PPG. Name of co-financier (source) Classification Type Amount ($) %* Bahamas Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 3,465,000 7.28% Barbados Natl’l Govt In-kind tbd Belize Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 223,800 0.47% Brazil Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 2,500,000 5.25% Colombia Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 1,660,980 3.49% DR Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 252,000 0.53% Grenada Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 554,300 1.16% Guatemala Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 44,800 0.09% Haiti Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 50,000 0.11% Honduras Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 33,600 0.07% Jamaica Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 349,800 0.74% Mexico Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 110,000 0.23% Panama Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 3,268,000 6.87% St. Lucia Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 381,000 0.80% Suriname Natl’l Gov’t In-kind 208,000 0.44% US NOAA Government Agency In-kind 22,600,000 47.49% Cropper Foundation NGO In-kind 1,258,026 2.64% TNC NGO In-kind 1,077,000 2.26% CoML NGO In-kind 2,425,000 5.10% CRFM Beneficiary In-kind 2,829,000 5.94% OLDEPESCA, OSPESCA Beneficiaries In-kind 332600 0.70% FAO Multilat Agency In-kind 1,336,000 2.81% IOCARIBE Multilat Agency In-kind 830,000 1.74% UNEP Multilat Agency In-kind 500,000 1.05% UNDP Multilat Agency In-kind 686,205 1.44% University of WI (CERMES) NGO In-kind 480,000 1.01% University of Miami, Rosentiel School NGO In-kind 136,000 0.29% PDF-B 213,000 Total Co-financing 47,804,111 100% * Percentage of each co-financier’s contribution at CEO endorsement to total co-financing.

D. GEF RESOURCES REQUESTED BY FOCAL AREA(S), AGENCY(IES) OR COUNTRY(IES) – (in $) GEF Country Name/ Focal Area Agency Global Project Agency Preparation Project Fee Total UNDP Int’l Regional 718, 836 7,008,116 779,884 8,506,836 Waters Total GEF Resources 718, 836 7,008,116 779,884 8,506,836

* No need to provide information for this table if it is a single focal area, single country and single GEF Agency project.

E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST* Total Estimated GEF Other sources Project total ($) Cost Items person weeks ($) ($) Local consultants* 1150 200,000 1,800,000 2,000,000 International consultants* 100 165,000 300,000 465,000 Office facilities, equipment, vehicles 275,000 1,495,000 1,770,000 and communications** Travel** 20,000 500,000 520,000 Total 1250 660,000 4,095,000 4,805,000

Office facilities include: Rentals – Government of Colombia/IOCARIBE for project HQ, Coralina for Reef Pilot and OSPESCA for lobster pilot - $1,050,000 Utilities – IOCARIBE, UNEP, OSPESCA and host countries - $300,000 Furnishings – IOCARIBE, TNC/UNEP and OSPESCA $100,000 Utilities and supplies – GEF - $45,000 Telecoms/internet/web-site, maintenance – GEF - $50,000 Public awareness materials, translations – GEF - $95,000 Equipment, including server and GIS, and software– GEF - $85,000

Travel: CTA to undertake missions on project management business to UNDP-GEF NY or Panama and UNOPS Copenhagen.

F. CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Estimated Other Project total Component person weeks GEF($) sources ($) ($) Local consultants* 5250 1,620,000 3,750,000 5,370,000 International consultants* 700 1,304,000 500,000 1,804,000 Total 5950 2,924,000 4,250,000 7,174,000 * Provide detailed information regarding the consultants in Annex C.

G. DESCRIBE THE BUDGETED M&E PLAN : Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures as well as with the managemetn structure and processes proposed for this project. The Strategic Results Framework Matrix in Section IV, Part 2 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification which will underpin the M&E system that will be established. The standard M&E reports and procedures required for all UNDP/GEF projects would apply to the M&E for the proposed project, including the following: i) Inception Workshop and Report; ii) Tripartite Review; iii) Quarterly Operational Report; iv) Harmonized Annual Project Report and Project Implementation Review, including Project Terminal Report; v) Periodic Thematic Reports; vi) Independent External Evaluations, both Mid-term and Final ; vii) Budget Revisions ; viii) Substantive Project Revisions; and ix) Audit. The costed M&E plan is summarized below:

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$ Time frame Excluding project team Staff time Within first two . Project Coordinator Inception Workshop months of project . UNDP GEF start up . Project Team Immediately Inception Report None . UNDP GEF following IW Measurement of Means of . CTA will oversee the hiring of To be finalized in Start, mid and end Verification for Project specific studies and institutions, and Inception Phase and of project Purpose Indicators delegate responsibilities to relevant Workshop.

team members Measurement of Means of . Oversight by UNDP-GEF To be determined as Progress indicators/ Verification for Project . Project team part of the Annual performance Progress and Performance . Measurements by regional field Work Plan's indicators will be (measured on an annual officers and local IAs preparation. monitored annually basis) and reported in APR/PIR APR/PIR/RT . Project Team None Annually . UNDP-GEF Steering Committee Meetings . CTA and Project Team None Every year, upon . UNDP-GEF receipt of APR Periodic status reports . Project team 7,000 To be determined by Project team and UNDP Technical reports . Project team 7,000 To be determined by . Hired consultants as needed Project Team and UNDP-GEF Mid-term External Evaluation . Project team 40,000 At the mid-point of . UNDP-GEF project . External Consultants (i.e. evaluation implementation. team) Final External Evaluation . Project team, 60,000 At the end of project . UNDP-GEF implementation . External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team) Terminal Report At least one month . Project team None before the end of the . External Consultant project Lessons learned . Project team Yearly . UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating 4,000 (average $1,000 Unit (suggested formats for per year) documenting best practices, etc) Audit 28,000 (average $7000 Yearly . Project team per year) Visits to field sites (UNDP . UNDP-GEF Yearly 10,000 (average one staff travel costs to be . UNDP COs, as appropriate visit per year) charged to IA fees) . Government representatives TOTAL INDICATIVE COST US$ 156,000 Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses

PART II: PROJECT JUSTIFICATION A. DESCRIBE THE PROJECT RATIONALE AND THE EXPECTED MEASURABLE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS: Many fisheries in the Caribbean, particularly coastal ones that support small-scale fisheries, are overexploited and in crisis. In addition to its effects on livelihoods and poverty, overfishing is resulting in changes to marine ecosystem structure that may be irreversible and affect associated biodiversity. The Caribbean Sea contains one of the largest groupings of SIDS in the world, and their dependence on coastal and marine resources is increasing as a source of protein and to support the tourism industry and prime export products such as lobster. Throughout the region, the majority of the population inhabits the coastal zone, and there is a very high dependence on marine resources for livelihoods. The living marine resources (LMR) of the Caribbean LME are often shared, and ecosystem management and the recovery of depleted fish stocks will require cooperation at various geopolitical scales. Existing institutional, legal and policy frameworks for managing shared living marine resources across the region are inadequate. Capacities at the CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 5 national level are weak and information is poor and fragmented, particularly with relation to the transboundary distribution, dispersals and migrations of these organisms and the impact of changes in productivity and climate. In cases where information is available, it is often not easily or readily accessible for region-wide decision-making. This represents a major barrier to the sustainable ecosystem-based management of these shared marine resources where long- term programs to collect and integrate biogeophysical, social and economic data are critical in order to better understand the workings of the marine ecosystems and the effectiveness of management decisions. Given that the CLME does not have dominant large scale fisheries, the project will develop innovative governance/ management approaches suited to the large diversity of medium and artisanal scale fisheries, and focused primarily on conservation, optimization and intra-regional equity. It will enhance capacities at several levels, enabling countries and regional organizations to better engage in regional processes and frameworks, developing models based on resource types and degree of transboundary complexity - both geopolitical and biogeophysical. Critical information gaps, capacity constraints, and fragmented approaches to fisheries management need to be overcome if Caribbean LMR are to be sustainably managed and resource depletion reversed in accordance with the targets identified at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002. The project will: i) update the preliminary Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and fill critical data gaps through targeted assessments; ii) through a SAP, arrive at regional agreement on required reforms and investments needed to achieve comprehensive, ecosystem-based management of living marine resources; iii) develop a CLME Governance framework for LMR management, including mechanisms for cross-sectoral involvement and engagement of the private sector and civil society; iv) strengthen linkages between the private sector, governments, and regional organization in order to improve the policy cycle at all levels; v) develop an M&E framework for SAP implementation and to monitor ecosystem status trends; and vi) implement two demonstration projects to develop innovative models for managing shared fishery resources under different biophysical and geographic realities. The project will enable CLME countries to better manage and govern strategic and shared living marine resources and to protect associated biodiversity, by introducing a regional ecosystem-based management approach that will provide for long-term resource sustainability, and improved food and economic security. Project outcomes and outputs contribute to the achievement of indicators of the GEF 4 IW Program and will generate global benefits:

Relevant IW indicators Project’s contribution Process Outcome: Multi-country agreement The project will spearhead the development of a robust TDA for the basin on transboundary priority concerns, impacts building upon the preliminary thematic and geographic reports developed during and causes the preparatory phase which have already been reviewed by all participating countries and partners. Indicator: Final TDA adopted by Project Steering Committee. Baseline created and captured in IMS. Process Outcome: Multi-country agreement Based on the TDA, an agreed Strategic Action Program (SAP) for Caribbean on governance reforms and investments to LME shared living marine resources will be completed during the FSP. The SAP address priority transboundary concerns. will define required legal, policy and institutional reforms and investments at Transboundary LMR issues analyzed and national and regional levels. needed actions agreed upon

Indicator: TDA and SAP adopted by nations and organizations and SAP implementation and M&E agreed and supported. Process Outcome: Effective national inter- Participating countries have committed to the establishment/or strengthening of ministry coordination operational national inter-ministerial committees. The project will assist countries in ensuring an effective information flow and collaboration between the various Indicator: Documentation of functioning agencies and sectors, initially through guided information gathering and joint-fact national Interministerial (inter-sectoral) finding exercises. committees Process Outcome: Stakeholder involvement In compliance with GEF requirements, the project has prepared a Stakeholder in transboundary Waterbody priority setting Analysis and a draft Stakeholder Involvement and Communication Strategy and strategic planning during the preparatory phase that will constitute the basis for dynamic and active participation of the 23 GEF-eligible countries, non-GEF eligible countries and Indicator: Final Stakeholder Involvement territories, regional organizations and key stakeholder groups at all levels. The and Communication Strategy and support and buy-in of stakeholders underpins the effectiveness of the TDA-SAP CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 6

Stakeholder Advisory Group progress process. A Stakeholder Advisory Group will provide a forum for ensuring reports continuous inputs from key stakeholder groups.

Process Outcome: Multi-country water A main objective of the project is to define and develop a functional multinational body legal framework adopted and/or governance framework that will provide for the robust ecosystem-based strengthened management of the living marine resources of the Caribbean Sea. The project provides for working with sub-regional and regional organizations – both Indicator: Agreement on new regional technical and political - that focus on aspects of marine resource use or have a governance framework wider mandate for sustainable development. The project will analyze and strengthen the governance cycles and within them encourage and expand the ecosystem-based management approach. Process Outcome: Newly established and/or The project will enhance institutional structures responsible for living resource strengthened (existing) transboundary ecosystem management, advisory support, and decision-making (based on existing waters institutions structures and through the principle of ‘strengthening by doing’). These institutions will be networked through technical working groups, information Indicator: inter alia, Inter-institutional management systems and memorandums of understanding. The project will assist Memorandum of Understandings, reports of in establishing within these bodies the capacity to participate in the various meeting, institutional reviews, training regional management bodies in compliance with the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, records. WSSD and other relevant international agreements. Process Outcome: Financial sustainability The project seeks to ensure sustainability and replicability of the regional of regional governance framework governance framework by identifying suitable economic instruments to generate financial support (e.g. fees on fishing/tourism, trust funds, government Indicator: Financial report on costs of contributions, etc.). .This should ensure strong support for SAP implementation support for regional governance from a wide array of stakeholders including tourism and fisheries. framework. Regional and national economic instruments identified and implemented. Process Outcome: LME monitoring, Development of a suite of process, stress reduction and environmental status evaluation framework and reporting indicators (GEF International Waters Indicators), for the Caribbean LME shared processes in place living marine resources using an improved knowledge base and enhanced regional institutional arrangements and including indicators of the five LME modules of ecosystem level productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, Indicator: M&E strategy; defined and socioeconomics, and governance. agreed suite of indicators and monitoring programmes in place; and strengthened monitoring capacity.

B. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH REGIONAL AND NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PLANS: The countries of the Caribbean have repeatedly indicated the need for attention to shared living marine resource management at the regional and international levels through participation in regional arrangements, and through signing various international treaties and agreements. IOCARIBE Member Countries have endorsed this project at two consecutive Sub-commission meetings (1995 and 1999). In the past two to three decades, the countries of the region have made progress in establishing and enhancing the institutional capacity for collaborative management of their national and shared coastal and marine resources. This process has been complex and multifaceted owing to the geopolitical complexity of the region. Growing concern and interest by the countries of the Wider Caribbean region in the environmental conditions and trends of the Caribbean Sea resulted in the adoption in 1981 of the Caribbean Action Plan. Subsequently in 1983 the countries adopted the Cartagena Convention for the legal implementation of the Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP/CEP 1983). Institutional arrangements for the management of transboundary living marine resources in the Caribbean region have been emerging, de facto, from the ongoing efforts of various institutions. The approach in the Caribbean reflects the large diversity of resources that are mostly exploited by indigenous fleets so that the issues relate primarily to conservation, optimization and intra-regional equity. Organizations such as UNESCO IOC IOCARIBE and the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission have established and enhanced institutional capacity for collaborative management of the national and shared coastal and marine resources – a complex and multifaceted process owing to the geopolitical complexity of the region. The region is also characterized by a diversity of national governance and institutional arrangements, stemming primarily from the governance structures established by the countries that once colonized the region. Thus there has also been recognition of the wide variation in the level of the countries’ capacities for living marine resource management.

Nonetheless, all countries have committed to the implementation of the principles of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. This commitment is reflected at national levels, where the majority of countries have dedicated fisheries authorities and all have diverse initiatives to secure more sustainable fisheries management approaches and mechanisms. In many countries, ICZM legislation and plans are either in existence or being developed, with a view to achieving greater inter-sectoral coordination to provide for improved management of coastal and marine resources, as well as to lay the bases for ecosystem-based management approaches.

C. DESCRIBE THE CONSISTENCY OF THE PROJECT WITH GEF STRATEGIES AND STRATEGIC PROGRAMS: The project fully conforms to the first of the GEF-4 global concerns regarding the depletion of coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity. The project will deliver enhanced multi-state cooperation through innovative governance and management frameworks in support of key resources that underpin the economies of the region’s countries in keeping with SO1 and SP 1. Within SP1, the Project will address the need for an agreed collective program of action, that will include assessment of fishery stocks, productivity and biodiversity, and encourage the adoption of the ecosystem based management approach and utilisation of the International Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. The project moreover aims to catalyze policy, legal and institutional reforms at both national and regional levels. In achieving these objectives, key partnerships with a range of NGOs, RFMOs and other GEF agencies have been established, that will assist in heightening the project’s benefits and ensuring their sustainability. Most critically, the project is designed to engage the fishing industry and stakeholder communities in fisheries management solutions. In so doing, this initiative will enable countries to uphold WSSD Targets for Sustainable Fish Stocks. Through the reef fisheries and biodiversity demonstration project, the best management strategies for reef fisheries both inside and at the margins of marine protected areas (MPAs) and in adjacent areas will be investigated and developed, thus already generating synergies with biodiversity protection and conservation objectives. Finally, it should be noted that the project’s scope, and in particular work on the shrimp and groundfish fishery in the Guianas-Brazil region, indicates that through this project GEF will already be delivering benefits to another LME, the North Brazil Shelf.

D. OUTLINE THE COORDINATION WITH OTHER RELATED INITIATIVES: There are number of on-going regional projects to which, for both technical and governance aspects, the proposed project will be linked, which include a number of major GEF projects. The Integrating Watershed and Coastal Area Management (IWCAM) for the Small Island Development States of the Caribbean project focuses on improving watershed and coastal zone management practices and is a natural project partner. It is expected to provide valuable information for updating the TDA and there will be close collaboration between the two initiatives thus delivering the comprehensive ridge-to-reef-to-offshore-areas approach that is required to address transboundary priorities. Another key partner project would be the GEF Gulf of Mexico LME, which addresses through the TDA/SAP process similar transboundary fisheries management concerns and shares some transboundary fisheries. It is anticipated that there to be significant synergy with this project. There are two other major GEF international waters projects in the region, the Environmental Protection and Marine Transport Pollution Control in the Gulf of Honduras (Belize, Honduras and Guatemala) which may have a bearing on any spiny lobster pilot project located in the sub-region and the UNEP led Regional Programme of Action and Demonstration of Sustainable Alternatives to DDT for Malaria Vector Control in Mexico and Central America. The transboundary impact of DDT on fisheries was not assessed either qualitatively or quantifiably in the existing CLME TDA. In addition to GEF-supported initiatives, there are a broad range of ongoing projects and programmes that are of relevance to this project. For example, the WECAF Ad Hoc Working Groups are important fora for development of sub-regional fisheries plans and documents guided by the principle of the ecosystem based approach. For two of the fisheries that this project will focus on, shrimp/groundfish and flyingfish, WECAFC ad hoc Working Groups are actually the lead agencies. Similarly, the pilot on Reef fisheries and biodiversity is lead by UNEP in order to ensure strong linkages and cross-fertilization with ongoing work within the SPAW Protocol of the Cartagena Convention. In keeping with established IW practices, the project will establish close cooperation with IW:Learn and explore possibilities to develop learning tools for LME management. Consistent exchange of lessons learned and good practices through IW:Learn as well as other fora at national and bi-national will facilitate the dissemination of information thus assisting in the creation of an enabling environment for furthering project outcomes. The project will participate, with project funds, in the GEF Biennial International Waters Conferences (2009, 2011). It will also contribute to the preparation of IW “Experience Notes” documenting important lessons and good practice, and contributions to various IW:LEARN-mediated regional and thematic knowledge sharing activities. CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 8

E. DESCRIBE THE INCREMENTAL REASONING OF THE PROJECT: Given the transboundary nature of the threats to the LMR that are a mainstay of many of the Caribbean economies, only a project of this scope can develop the necessary response and management measures required. Without the proposed GEF project, the present trend of decline and crisis will continue until resources are depleted (FAO 1998), leading to political/economic conflicts that affect regional stability. Food security and poverty levels will be impacted, especially in SIDS, at marginal socioeconomic levels, and in rural coastal areas with the fewest economic alternatives. Depleted LMRs will also severely impact tourism in several ways including degradation of recreational fisheries and loss of local seafood products. Biodiversity will be threatened as the trend in degradation of LMRs continues. Overfishing and other forms of exploitation in the Caribbean’s coastal ecosystems threaten the many intrinsically valuable endemic species of the region. Without a functional and effective regional management framework, countries will be unable to generate adequate responses, and will remain lacking the national and regional level institutional mechanisms, capacity and knowledge base for management of transboundary living marine resources. The potential of international agreements such as UNCLOS, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries to contribute to improved management and ultimately marine livelihoods will not be realized in the Caribbean region. Global benefits will be demonstrated through more stable fish stocks, increased regional stability and co-operation, improved livelihoods for coastal communities and fishing industry, and enhanced protection for associated biodiversity.

The living marine resources of the Caribbean LME are often shared between countries, and the management and the recovery of depleted fish stocks will require cooperation at various geopolitical levels. However, efforts to advance towards sustainable fisheries in the Caribbean have been piecemeal. There is a broad and diverse range of national and regional governance and institutional arrangements for addressing the management of living marine resources. Therefore capacities and institutional and policy frameworks vary greatly between countries. While some of the larger countries have begun to develop sustainable fisheries programmes and are investing heavily in the licensing of fishermen and in establishing and maintaining permanent fishery resource management committees, in most of the small countries fisheries management is quite limited with uneven implementation of sectoral policies and weak enforcement. Although improved knowledge and information, both scientific and socio-economic, are required to support management decisions, in many states - particularly smaller SIDS - there is chronic under-funding for LMR regulatory activities and research projects. It is clear that there is a substantial gulf between the larger and smaller CLME states, but there are also limited possibilities for cooperation in the absence of an overarching regional framework. In the survey to assess the national baselines carried out during the preparatory phase almost all countries expressed concern over the impacts that fisheries effort in neighboring countries has on local resources. However, in most cases, appropriate frameworks are not in place to facilitate discussions and efforts at joint management while paucity in information further constrains appropriate management decisions. At the national level, information is limited and fragmented, particularly with relation to the transboundary distribution and migrations of these resources. Under these conditions, excessive fishing effort will continue unabated, with the potential for heightened tensions and even conflict that has already been evidenced in other regions of the world.

In the absence of the proposed GEF intervention, capacity and information gaps between countries will most probably continue to grow, along with a strongly sectoral focus orienting away from the desired ecosystem-based management approaches. Although country allocations for sub-regional efforts are limited, work on specific fisheries will continue be undertaken, particularly through mechanisms such as the WECAF Guiana-Brazil Shelf Shrimp and Groundfish Working Group and the Ad Hoc Flyingfish Working Group as well as the UWI Eastern Caribbean Flyingfish Project. However, the management of certain important fisheries, such as coastal large pelagic species, may not be addressed adequately because of the limited capacity of the smaller states to participate in existing regional governance arrangements. Overall, the formation of the critical linkages at the sub-regional and regional levels necessary to achieve governance cycles with not be realized and effective management models for sustainable fisheries at national levels will not be established and replicated.

Only with external support will it be possible to develop coherent system-wide, ecosystem-based management approaches to ensure the sustainable development of the region’s strategic marine living resources. The challenge will be to undertake the necessary baseline assessment and forward planning for effective ecosystem based management while at the same time building a strong management and governance framework capable of delivery. An improved data, information baseline will be a major impetus to the countries to strengthen their governance structures, since CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 9

improved knowledge is a key input to clear and cost effective decision-making. Conversely, without a strong governance framework and knowledge of the decisions that need to be supported, assessment efforts and precious funding may be wasted and the political will be lacking. This simple lesson has been learnt in implementation of numerous GEF international waters projects, including LME projects, most recently in implementation of the Benguela Current LME project.

The proposed project for the Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions will build on and complement existing projects and initiatives that focus on technical and institutional aspects of sustainable living marine resource use. Most present projects in the Caribbean have a focus that is primarily coastal and several include only sub-areas of the Caribbean LME. The present project will expand this focus to offshore systems and transboundary issues at the scale of the Caribbean LME. With this project, there is the opportunity to develop management strategies, tools and plans for sustainable development and use of key transboundary fisheries and to strengthen and reform management and governance frameworks. Since most living marine resources are shared in some way, these reforms can be expected to lead to improved food security and enhanced livelihoods, particular in the SIDS which are heavily reliant on fisheries and tourism. By encouraging the adoption of the ecosystem based approach there is also the likelihood of preservation and rehabilitation of degraded coastal ecosystems, and enhanced conservation and preservation of marine biodiversity.

F. INDICATE RISKS, INCLUDING CLIMATE CHANGE RISKS, THAT MIGHT PREVENT THE PROJECT OBJECTIVE(S) FROM BEING ACHIEVED AND OUTLINE RISK MANAGEMENT MEASURES:

Risk Risk Rating Risk management strategy Type CLME countries and the Political Medium The region recognizes the need for a regional governance framework numerous CLME and the CRFM’s recent Common Fisheries Policy initiative is seen as organizations/institutions a positive sign. At several IOC meetings the objectives of this project are unwilling to work have been supported. Moreover, the project strategy is to work closely together under a single with ongoing processes and programs, such as the WECAF Ad Hoc fisheries management and Working groups, and RFMOs that collectively have mandates from all governance framework the countries in the region to address fisheries issues, thereby building upon ongoing efforts, agreements and commitments. National fisheries Political Medium There may be economic and commercial factors which create barriers authorities are unwilling to to full cooperation, for example, coastal fisheries, such as the lobster, share data and harmonize may be viewed as a national resource. However, the benefits of access management strategies for to improved and harmonized data bases, through the project’s transboundary fisheries Information Management System, should provide an incentive to cooperation. The countries are able to Political Low There are significant differences in the participating countries size, develop a common vision geographic configuration, and economic development and therefore and management objectives the importance and protection afforded the transboundary fisheries by for the SAP each country will vary. The project will need to demonstrate the countries’ inter-dependence in managing their fisheries. The M&E framework to Political Medium Operationalising the M&E framework will take concerted effort by the track the CLME participating countries and relevant organizations and will take many environmental status and years and considerable financial investment to accomplish. The larger, SAP implementation will wealthier countries and organizations should be seen to take the lead in be sustained. financing. It is envisaged that new co-funding will become available during the project’s life to support this activity. Parallel commitment on the Financial Low Without the adoption of SAP by all the participating countries, it part of Governments and would be difficult to secure long term financing for stress reduction potential donors to ensure measures in the basin. Thus, the project will take measures to reduce financial sustainability the political risk associated with the adoption of the SAP throughout beyond the life of the the TDA/SAP development process. In addition, a better

Project understanding of the transboundary aspects of Caribbean fisheries, and the economic impacts of fragmented approaches that result in overfishing, should be an incentive to strong support for SAP implementation. Significant difference in Political Low The project has an emphasis on horizontal co-operation and participating countries’ networking among bodies and organizations at the national and size, geographic regional levels in order to set the basis for region-wide ecosystem configuration, development management approaches. This will maximize the relative strengths and economic level limit and priorities of different groups of countries, and should actually achievement of project provide an incentive to support project outcomes. Additionally, the outcomes. project will encourage South-South cooperation by generating opportunities for countries with greater capacity and experience in management of specific fisheries, to share their expertise with others.

G. EXPLAIN HOW COST-EFFECTIVENESS IS REFLECTED IN THE PROJECT DESIGN: The transboundary nature of many living marine resources demands regional, comprehensive responses. In their absence, fragmented national or sub-regional efforts, as have been the case to date, fail to develop adequate governance frameworks to stem and reverse the decline of living marine resources. Given that for many countries in the region fisheries is an important component of national economies as well as a traditional livelihood option that provides food security to vulnerable populations, their continued decline will have socio-economic repercussions. In addition, there are two potential benefits for regional cooperation of ecosystem-based fisheries management. First, the minimisation of wasteful use of shared stocks (mitigating the economic risk on non-cooperation). Second, the increase of opportunity by managing the harvesting by all countries so that shared stocks are allowed to grow to their fullest economic potential and assuring that associated biodiversity is not impacted. This project will minimise the economic risks of non- cooperation by establishing a governance framework within which the countries can effectively manage these resources. The project will determine, to the extent possible, the maximum value of this risk of non-cooperation compared with the costs of management and protection.

PART III: INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT: The project will be guided by a Steering Committee comprising representatives of the participating states, the GEF implementing and executing agencies, other key international partners and donors (IOCARIBE, FAO NOAA, EU, etc.) and stakeholders. The Steering Committee will review and approve all technical documents, review budgets and financial reports and provide general strategic and implementation guidance to the PCU. It will meet once a year and all its decisions will be made on the basis of consensus. In addition to the Steering Committee, at the Sub-Regional level, advisory bodies will be formed, comprising representatives of the countries and the implementing and executing agencies, to review all sub-regional activities, including demonstration projects. National Focal Points (NFP) in each of the participating countries will be encouraged to established Inter-ministerial (inter-sectoral) committees where these do not yet exist, to review the TDA and SAP and other important project documents, and ensure policy streamlining. Another important role of the NFP will be to ensure coordination of relevant national projects (government and donor funded) with the UNDP-GEF project. A regional Stakeholder Advisory Group (STAG) will be established and supported to provide early input to the TDA and SAP. Stakeholders from a wide array of groups with diverse interests and concerns will be recruited to serve on the STAG. They may include representatives from coastal community stakeholders, NGOs, fishing and tourist industries, conservationists, the media, educators, and others. The members will receive training on the UNDP/GEF TDA/SAP approach and the ecosystem based management approach. The STAG will convene prior to Steering Committee Meetings to provide feedback, recommendations, comments and critique on project developments. The inputs for STAG will be incorporated into the project development, including TDA, SAP design and demonstration projects. A Partners of the Project (PoP) group, comprising participating and other interested donors, will be established at the beginning of the project with the objective of coordinating all affiliated projects and generating on-going co-funding.

The members will include UNDP, IOC, IOCARIBE, UNEP, FAO, NOAA, IUCN, TNC, and numerous bilateral donors. This group will meet approximately every 6 months, including via teleconference or other electronic means, and concurrent with annual meeting of the project Steering Committee. If found necessary and appropriate, a Project Advisory Group may be established which will communicate on a regular but ad hoc basis to discuss specific aspects of project implementation. The group would be led by the project Chief Technical Advisor and the PCU would serve as the secretariat. Membership may include UNDP, IOC, IOCARIBE, FAO/WECAF, UNEP, NOAA, IUCN, CERMES, CRFM, TNC, ACS and OSPESCA. This Group would meet at least every six months, via teleconference or other electronic means if budget limitations so require. The project will be administered from a small Project Coordination Unit (PCU) to be located in the offices of IOCARIBE in Cartagena, Colombia. It will be staffed by an internationally recruited Chief Technical Advisor (CTA) with strong project management experience, multidisciplinary skills, and preferably with a background in fisheries and/or marine resources management, a Senior Project Officer and a regionally recruited Stakeholder and Public Involvement expert. The Stakeholder and Public Involvement expert will be located in the PCU to oversee public involvement activities including those related to the demonstration projects. Administration support staff, including an office manager and administrative assistant will be hired locally. The PCU will be provided with the basic equipment necessary for the functioning of the project, including computers, copy machines and other materials as needed and appropriate.

PART IV: EXPLAIN THE ALIGNMENT OF PROJECT DESIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL PIF: The project design is fully aligned with the original PIF. There was a small decrease in expected co-financing of $708,889 (1.5% of the PIF estimate) given that at the time of PIF elaboration not all co-financing had been confirmed. The only slight variations are in the allocation of the co-financing, again because at time of PIF formulation many co- financing commitments were still indicative. Whereas in the PIF $8m in co-financing had been assigned to Component 1, currently the allocation comes to $12.1m. With regards to Component 2, the PIF had assigned $13m and the current allocation is for $10.85m. The co-financing for the pilots in the PIF was estimated at $23m but actually corresponds to $20.52m. Finally, co-financing for project management also reflects a slight decrease from $4.45m to $4.09. However, it is underlined that the ratio between total GEF funding and total co-financing is equivalent to the ratio between the GEF funding for project management and the co-financing for this component.

PART V: AGENCY(IES) CERTIFICATION This request has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the GEF criteria for CEO Endorsement. Paula Caballero Regional Technical Advisor, LAC UNDP-GEF Project Contact Person John Hough UNDP-GEF Deputy Executive Director, a.i.

Date: 7 March 2008 Tel. and Email: 507 302 4571 [email protected]

ANNEX A: PROJECT RESULTS FRAMEWORK

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion Goal: Sustainable provision of goods and services by the shared living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean Region through robust cooperative governance Purpose 1. Agreement on and  Preliminary agreement of  The countries agree on the  Development of CLME  The 23 CLME countries and (Objective): understanding of the transboundary issues has been scope and priority of the Vision, LMR management the numerous CLME transboundary reached during the project transboundary issues and and ecosystemic objectives. organizations/institutions are Sustainable problems of the CLME preparation phase. Pollution develop interventions to address  Endorsement of TDA willing to work together under a management of as they relate to was a priority issue for many them with the SAP.  Pre-feasibility studies of single fisheries management and the shared living management of living states but its form and key interventions governance framework marine resources marine resources transboundary component has of the Caribbean not been established. With  Baseline regulatory fisheries LME and adjacent regard to LMR it remains a activities are implemented. areas through an perceived issue. There is no ecosystem-based general contaminant monitoring  Government commitments to management programme place for the development of sustainable approach that will CLME. Invasive species is fisheries, EBM approach and meet the WSSD recognized as a priority issue WSSD fisheries targets are target for addressed through the GEF maintained sustainable Globallast programme. The fisheries. countries are in agreement  No serious events occur to regarding the need to address modify current political stability in the LMR policy cycles at the region. various level given their commitment to sustainable  Estimates of moderate fisheries, EBM and the WSSD economic growth and social targets. stability. 2. Regional and sub-  The countries meet to  Establish a regional LMR  Structured involvement of regional governance discuss LMR issues at various governance framework based on key stakeholders at national, framework(s) fora and at various levels, with existing fora and organizations, sub-regional and regional incorporating the key differing national focal points. which will link in with levels in the decision making policy cycle Stakeholder involvement and frameworks at national and sub- process. components (decision inter-sectoral coordination is regional levels and give  The concept of making; not structured opportunity for stakeholder subsidiarity demonstrated implementation;  Regional and sub-regional advocacy. The governance between levels review and evaluation; LMR governance frameworks framework (s) will be linked to  Agreed mandate for new data and information; are not articulated the necessary technical framework analysis and advice) institutions and there should be  MoUs between existing are established and unbroken information and organizations and institutions operational by end of knowledge flow at regional and sub-regional project. levels

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion 3. Decision support  Decision frameworks have  Decision frameworks and  Management plans agreed framework(s) agreed been developed for individual associated management plans with clear targets and and applied for key fisheries (flying fish) but have developed for key interventions transboundary fisheries not been implemented. There is transboundary fisheries at the  REMP and IMS and the CLME no general decision framework regional and sub-regional levels. developed and ecosystem. for the CLME LMR and Output from a Regional operationalised in 50% of ecosystem and there is no Environmental Monitoring participating states adaptive management Programme and Integrated  Management plans take framework. Information Management into account environmental System used to support decision variability, including climate frameworks. Decision change. frameworks to reflect an adaptive management approach with threshold trigger indicator levels 4. Regional planning  There is currently no  A regional SAP to  SAP document endorsed framework (SAP) to comparable framework for the operationalise CLME vision and by the participating states. address transboundary CLME management objectives and  M&E framework agreed issues as they relate to strengthen the LMR governance  Institutional framework LMR developed by end of the project. The SAP agreed for coordination of will incorporate the associated SAP implementation fisheries management plans and commit the countries to short and medium term interventions  The SAP is supported by bilateral and multi-lateral donors as well as the participatory states.  The SAP has mechanisms in place to be monitored and evaluated bi-annually and recast every five years OUTCOME 1: 1. Detailed analyses of  Provisional agreement only  Agreement on the  TDA document finalized The countries are willing to share Analysis of transboundary issues on the perceived problems transboundary issues, their and endorsed by the countries data and information on fisheries Transboundary as they relate to living relating to the transboundary scope and priority, supported by and the environment. Issues relating to marine resources fisheries of the CLME. The strong, verifiable scientific the management elaborated knowledge regarding evidence by the end of year two. Regional agreement on the of LMR and transboundary pollution (PTS, findings of the TDA and listings of Identification of PoPs) is extremely limited. priority interventions Needed Actions Transboundary issues are usually bi-lateral or sub- Institutional framework regional, rarely regional. established to manage and Understanding of the maintain the IMS.

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion transboundary nature of fisheries such as the spiny lobster and conch as the different stocks and larval dispersion is becoming better understood.

2. Agreement on  There is no consensus on  A listing of priority  Management plans for needed interventions at how to address the interventions to be implemented specific fisheries agreed with sub-regional and transboundary issues and no to address transboundary issues timetable and budgets ( linked regional levels to clear governance framework by and management of to outcome 3 – Pilot projects) address underlying and which to address them. FAO transboundary fisheries from an root causes for the WECAFC Ad hoc working EBM perspective . major transboundary groups have been established issues for the spiny lobster and flying fish fisheries, but management plans have not been implemented. 3  Limited knowledge of the  Improved catch data for  Endorsed multi-lateral Number of agreements linkages between catch data, priority transboundary fisheries. fishery management plans for on target and limit ecosystem integrity, and energy  Assessment of the impact of large pelagics, flying fish, catch reference points transfer between trophic levels. the Shrimp fishery on the lobster, and shrimp and for transboundary  The knowledge regarding ecosystem of the Brazil – groundfish fisheries based on fisheries with transboundary pollution (PTS, Guianas shelf and mitigation EBM approach. reference to ecosystem PoPs) is extremely limited. measures agreed health.  Transboundary issues are usually understood and managed at bi-lateral or sub- regional, rarely regional, levels 4. An integrated  Fisheries catch data  Creation of a meta-database  IMS launched and Information compiled by FAO members is of CLME fisheries and practitioners trained in its use. Management System fragmented and not quality environmental data and a Countries providing data to track trends in assured. No system available to database supporting the regional from implementation of the fishery and enable data to be interrogated environmental monitoring REMP environmental status and analysed to support a programme and the decision as a tool for EBM is decision support framework. frameworks. developed and Environmental data is not  Agreement on institutional operational by the compiled regionally or sub- framework for the management second year of project regionally and cannot be and upkeep of database. implementation compared and contrasted with fisheries data.

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion Outcome 2: 1. A long-term vision  There is no existing  Vision incorporated into  Long-term political and SAP for management of overarching agreement between  An achievable long-term national fisheries policy and financial commitment to SAP Development and shared MLR of the the CLME countries on vision for the development and planning documents. implementation identification of CLME underpinned by management of the management of the LMR of the reforms and objectives and targets transboundary fisheries. CLME which addresses  National fisheries authorities investments for agreed to by Existing agreements are sustainable management, EBM are willing to harmonize management of participating countries bilateral, sub-regional or and meets the WSSDs targets management strategies for shared living international and on a fishery for fisheries. transboundary fisheries resources by fishery basis. Ecosystem- based management approaches  Countries are able to endorse are not applied in the region. SAP through national planning 2. A planning  No regional plan exists  A SAP that will provide a  Signing of a regional process framework and which addresses the issues of road-map for regional SAP. timetable for management of transboundary development and management  Financial commitments  The countries and regional implementation of an LMR taking into account the of transboundary fisheries. by the signatory states to SAP organizations are prepared to agreed set of regional EBM approach. Single species implementation. cooperate within a single and sub-regional and fishery plans have been  Reference to SAP in the framework interventions (SAP) developed but in many cases national fisheries policy and top address priority implementation is weak. planning and in other related  The management framework is LMR issues is sector plans. self financing beyond the life of supported by the project participating countries 3. Agreed CLME  There are numerous  A flexible governance  A signed agreement on  National funding is available fisheries governance regional and sub-regional fora framework based on existing the mandate of the regional for execution of the monitoring framework with cross- under which address institutions and organizations governance framework and and evaluation framework, in sectoral linkages and management of the CLME which will represent all financial mechanism defined particular the REMP vertical linkages to the fisheries to a greater or lesser Caribbean states and will sub-regional, national extent (CARICOM, ACS, provide clear linkages to the and local levels. CFRM, ICCAT, WCAFC, sub-regional, national and local OSPESCA). However their levels and provide a mechanism mandates are fragmentary and for stakeholder involvement in the inter-relationships are not the decision making process clear. Involvement of stakeholders is not uniform and is often not structured 4. M&E framework  There are currently no  To develop and establish a  Monitoring data produced developed to track agreed indicators for tracking monitoring and evaluation by the countries and implementation of the trends in the fisheries and framework to track fisheries and incorporated into the IMS. SAP and the status of environmental status. National environmental trends and to the CLME fisheries monitoring results are often support agreed decision and environment, incomparable and do not framework(s). The framework based on GEF IW address transboundary issues. to include a regional indicators Monitoring programmes have environmental monitoring

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion evolved organically and often programme (REMP) based on don’t support the decision selected environmental status frameworks adequately. indicators  Inter-ministerial or inter-  A diverse range of 5. Functional inter-  Effective inter-ministerial or  Country reports to the sectoral groups exist in several stakeholders, including resource ministerial or inter- inter-sectoral groups are Steering Committee countries but are largely not users at all levels and the private sectoral committees in successful in engaging a broad focused on fisheries sector, understand the benefits of each participating group of stakeholders in support management issues, which still EBM approaches and are country support the of EBM LMR approaches has a strong sectoral focus in supportive of any required trade- SAP development almost all countries offs process and lay the bases for future SAP implementation 6. Project web-site  A comprehensive, bi-  Web-site updated  CERMES and IOCARIBE  The local ISP can provide the established and lingual, information and regularly host summary project web- band-width necessary to support maintained discussion web site up-dated  Number of web-sites hits pages the web-site and IMS regularly and hosting GIS  Media material elements of the IMS. incorporated  STAG members are fully  Linkages from key web- engaged in the TDA/SAP process sites and retrievable using and are willing to devote their time Yahoo and Google to the process  Countries and donors are willing to cooperate in development and support of the SAP  The size of the inception and Steering Committee meetings is limited and that representation will be at the sub-regional level.

7. A Stakeholder  A regional forum at which  STAG meeting meetings 2. A Stakeholder Advisor Group  No specific stakeholder Advisor Group the a wide range of stakeholders  STAG representation on (STAG) created group exists currently in any of (STAG) created can express their views SCM the regional or sub-regional regarding fisheries management fisheries mandated  Comments from STAG and be heard by heard by the organizations on TDA and SAP key decision makers

8. Friends of the  An informal group of  FoP meeting minutes 3. Friends of the Project group N/A Project group bilateral and multi-lateral  Attendance of FoP at the established established donors supporting SCM implementation of the SAP  Support of SAP components by FoP

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion members Outcome 3:  The CLME spiny lobster 1. Agreement on pilot  Establish a set of  Agreed fisheries Targeted projects fisheries are subject to varying  Full national and local sites for the spiny governance models and management plans with aimed at levels of governance at the participation and support to lobster and reef fishery replicability plans for the Spiny clearly defined roles and strengthening the national level. Size restrictions demonstration projects which will enable a Lobster and Reef fisheries at the responsibilities at the national policy cycle and and close seasons are imposed  Acceptance by the national range of governance national and local levels which and local levels and fishery early and implemented through the authorities of the mandates of the models/management can be replicated throughout the targets. implementation of suppliers rather than the local local management bodies techniques to be tested region. The spiny lobster model the SAP fishermen. Some self- under differing social, will be based on the sub-  Meeting minutes of  Strong support from and governance pilot projects have economic and regional management plan fishery management bodies collaboration with regional and been implemented at the local environmental developed based on local self- sub-regional fisheries management level but they are the exception  Dissemination of results baseline conditions governance site-specific trials bodies rathet than the rule. At the sub- at sub-regional and regional and which includes the creation regional level WECAFC has fora. of fishery councils. held a series of meetings to discuss transboundary  Full register of lobster implications of stock fishermen and merchants and management and established an knowledge of markets Ad hoc working group.  The reef fisheries associated  Agreements formulated with Marine Protected Areas are between fishermen councils and highly protected by legislation merchants to ensure sustainable and fishing is excluded. The spiny lobster fishery management of MPAs for  Models for reef fishery multiple use and where fishing governance based on an is allowed under strict ecosystem approach and management control is incorporating the concept of fish uncommon. Ownership and refuges developed and ground- governance by the local truthed at three sites with the communities in conjunction aim to increase area of reef with the national authorities has under marine management area not yet been trialed in the status by 50% (Seaflower MPA, region. Pedro Bank and N.W. Hispaniola)

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion 2. Increased self  Stakeholder involvement at  To establish a degree self  Composition of the governance and the local level is uncommon, governance in the Spiny lobster fishery management bodies stakeholder although the need to bring them and Reef fishery pilots which and meeting minutes. involvement in into the decision making will ensure a sustainable fishery  Local implementation and decision making process is universally and reduce administration costs policing of management plans process in recognized.  Area management plans for management of lobster large marine areas agreed fisheries and of including zoning, close seasons, multiple-use MPAs size limits and quotas supported by a clear decision framework with threshold values identified.  Fishery councils established with broad stakeholder involvement including fishermen, fish merchants, tourism industry, community groups, scientists and local government stakeholders.  Enforcement arrangements agreed and implemented at the local level  Improved compliance with existing fishery management regulations through review of enforcement mechanisms at selected sites

3. Improved  Existing management plans  To review existing  New agreed fisheries understanding of the do not take into account the knowledge of the fisheries to management plans based ecosystem in which impact of the fishery on the determine appropriate fishery on the EBM approach the two fisheries are ecosystem or benefits of a management tools to achieve  Final pilot project reports imbedded. healthy ecosystem, although sustainable mixed fisheries in a both are acknowledged. There healthy robust ecosystem and is a lack of scientific then to test them through a information about the monitoring and evaluation interactions and the trophic framework. linkages  Spiny lobster fishery data collection records improved with increased returns and improved measurement criteria (over the short project period observable improvement in the stock is unlikely)

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion  Comprehensive baselines created for reef fisheries including the identification of indicator species of environment health, sensitive areas and exploitable, over-exploited fish stocks and review of fishing practices and markets.  Improved reef fish catch data including increased returns and measured parameters and environmental status monitoring programme established.

 4. Improved catch  Spiny lobster catch data  To agree a monitoring and  Agreed M&E framework return data and compiled by members of FAO evaluation framework for both and database fisheries information and the WECAFC Ad hoc the spiny lobster and reef  Training in sampling working group is available but fisheries which can be techniques and processing coverage is incomplete and the replicated throughout the and data sampling data is inconsistent. There is no region and will provide  Results from two years of socio-economic data available information not only catches pilot project implementation. relating to the lobster fisheries. but also the ecosystem status Only limited catch data is and socio-economic setting available for reef fisheries.  Models for monitoring programs with MPA effectiveness indicators developed and under implementation

1. Establishment of N/A  A fully operational and  Local administration staff Outcome 4: Cost- Timely and efficient project start- regional Project equipped PCU established in the appointed Effective Project up with quick release of funds Coordination Unit offices of IOCARIBE in Management  PCU hosting agreement Cartagena,, Colombia within Arrangements signed with IOCARIBE three months of project Provided for  Filing and accounting commencement. systems set up and bank account opened. 2 Appoint Chief  An internationally recruited  Contracts signed N/A Technical Advisor and chief technical advisor regional technical appointed within one month of experts project commencement and regional technical experts within two months.

Target Unless otherwise stated these Project Strategy Indicator Base Line Means of Verification Assumption are targets for Project completion 3. Cost-effective  Delivery of project outputs  Steering Committee N/A project delivery to budget and programme at the reports required technical specification  UNDP Progress reports measured against inception report

ANNEX B: RESPONSES TO PROJECT REVIEWS (from GEF Secretariat and GEF Agencies, and Responses to Comments from Council at work program inclusion and the Convention Secretariat and STAP at PIF)

GEF Council Comments on the GEF/UNDP Project Document Sustainable Management of the Shared Marine Resources of the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem (CLME) and Adjacent Regions

Comments from Switzerland

GEF Council Comments Response Given that the region does not The project recognizes that multi-scale nested governance is a reality in the Wider have dominant large scale Caribbean given its geopolitical complexity and the diversity of its resource base fisheries, the project will have to and has been designed to address this reality. Rather than creating new develop innovative governance/ organizations, the project will focus on scale appropriateness and linkages to management approaches which effectively put in place transboundary living marine resource governance are suited to the large diversity of mechanisms in the Wider Caribbean. medium and small scale fisheries, and focused primarily on In order to achieve this, the project will work on five sub-regional fisheries of conservation, optimization and varying scale, including through two pilots that will provide opportunities to intra-regional equity. develop and fine-tune functional governance approaches that take into account differing management requirements and livelihood options. This includes linkages The challenge for UNDP as the to decision-making bodies at the regional level. These pilots will enable new GEF Agency for this project will management approaches to be explored on the ground, taking into account socio- thus be to develop scalable economic aspects, market (internal and external) realities, political constraints, and management approaches without other relevant issues. The pilots will be implemented in partnership with key losing the joint commitment to agencies that have been working on these issues through established fora, such as specific targets. We expect that WECAF for flying fish, shrimp and Groundfish, for OSPESCA for lobster, and this will require intensive UNEP for reef fisheries. Extensive work and research has already been carried by negotiations based on a concrete these partners, and in keeping with GEF guidance on incrementality, the project will and robust analysis of the present build upon these. situation, including external There will also be a specific project component that addresses institutional opportunities and threats. arrangements for distributed governance at the regional level through strengthening and linking existing organisations

In order to build a joint case for Although impacts of climate change in the region are of concern, given limited action from the analysis, we financial resources, it was decided that it would be more cost-effective to build upon believe that it might be the extensive work and research on climate change being carried out in the region advantageous to specifically and about the region, such as through the Caribbean Community Climate Change investigate and describe the Center (CCCCC). Data generated by organizations in the region and externally on effects of external opportunities climate change impacts, will inform the TDA process. and threats on the living marine resources in the region, e.g. the expected effects of climate change, possibly in scenarios.

We feel that the negotiation Indeed, UNDP’s network of Country Offices constitutes an important contribution process can largely profit from to the project. The Country Offices (COs) have regular interaction with a wide array the experienced network of the of stakeholders, and are uniquely placed to provide contextual information that can UNDP country offices as help the project appreciate national specificities. described in the PIF. In the further project preparation, Given the complexities inherent in a project of this nature, mechanisms for UNDP as the GEF Agency will consultation and definition of commitments are built into the project at various have the challenging task of levels. At the country level, the project calls for the establishment of inter- balancing the project approach sectoral/ministerial committees. At a regional level, in addition to the Steering CEO Endorsement CLME Project February 2008 23

GEF Council Comments Response between the requirements of Committee, a Stakeholder Advisory Group will be established to ensure active consistent methodologies of participation and inputs from a wide array of groups with diverse interests and analysis, coordinated programme concerns that may include representatives from coastal community stakeholders, development and individual fishing and tourist industries, and NGOs. political relevance regarding different issues in the At present in the Wider Caribbean there is no active region-wide policy cycle that participating countries. can be used to address governance of transboundary living marine resources. Therefore, the project provides for working with organizations – both technical and political - that operate at sub-regional and regional levels, and focus on aspects of marine resource use or have a wider mandate for sustainable development. The project will provide a mechanism for understanding current roles in transboundary living marine resource governance and engaging them in the definition and development of ecosystem-based management approaches. Many of these entities are inter-governmental with a mandate that already incorporates countries’ priorities and concerns. Conclusions and Recommendations We trust that we have fully and satisfactorily addressed the issues raised in this We recognize the importance of review the targeted ecosystems, their transboundary character, the relevance of the project objectives and their consistency with GEF strategies and strategic programs. We recommend to continue with project preparation while taking into account the issues raised above.

ANNEX C: CONSULTANTS TO BE HIRED FOR THE PROJECT

$/ Estimated Position Titles person week person weeks Tasks to be performed For Project Management Local Office Manager 500 210 Supervise all office administration and coordination with UNDP offices and pilot projects Administrative Assistant 500 190 Provide office administration support International Chief Technical Advisor 2,750 60 Provide project management leadership and have overall administrative responsibility for the project and the PCU. Ensure coordination and encourage collaboration with project partners. For Technical Assistance Local TDA Technical Task Team 1000 100 Review and provide technical feed-back on the TDA and TDA gap filling activities (Act 1.1 and 1.2). SAP Formulation team 1000 100 Review and develop SAP, including establishing vision, LMRQOs, targets and M&E framework (Act 2.1 and 2.3). Stakeholder Advisory Group 500 50 Review and provide input into the TDA and SAP and pilots (Act 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 -3.2) Sub-regional fisheries experts 1000 600 Inter alia, coordinate sub-regional inputs (3) into the project and has technical oversight of transboundary TDA fisheries studies. . Development of TDA interventions and pre-feasibility studies. Review of monitoring and fisheries data collection programmes. Draft sub-regional CLME status reports. Coordinate sub-regional input into SAP and Governance strengthening activities (Act 1.1, 2.1, 2.2 2.3). National fisheries consultants 1000 350 Collate and process data and information on transboundary fisheries and issues, including socio-economic data (Act 1.3 and 2.3) Sub-regional legal and 1000 15 Develop institutional map of the region institutional experts (Act 1.1) Public Involvement Advisor 1000 200 Coordination of PI components within the main project and pilot projects. Supervision of the SHA. Assist the Scientific Officer with the development and maintenance of the web-site. Completion of Stakeholder Analysis. Coordinate the Stakeholder Advisory Group.

Input into the SAP formulation (Act 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 3.1-2) National consultants 1000 230 Assistants to the NFPs for the SAP and Governance strengthen, public participation officers and pilot project liaison, assuming 10 weeks/yr and 23 countries. International Chief Technical Advisor 2750 140 Technical supervision of all specific fisheries related components of the project, TDA and SAP, including the gap filling activities related to the large pelagics, flying fish and groundfish and shrimp (Act 1.1, 1.2 and 2.1). Senior Project Officer 2000 200 Overall responsibility for development of the IMS (Act 1.3) and Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (Act 2.3), including development of the REMP and production of the TDA Environmental Officer 3000 45 Develop biodiversity section of the TDA (1.1) and review gap filling activities (1.2) develop the concept of EBM within the SAP (act 2.1) improved management governance framework (Activity 2.2).. Economist 3000 27 Socio-economic assessment of bioresources in the CLME in the three sub-regions and draft TDA section. Review and promotion of economic instruments for supporting improved governance structures under Activity 2.2 TDA/SAP expert 3000 17 Provide guidance to the CTA and Scientific Officer on the TDA/SAP process, including CCA, Vision and LMR QOs, targets and M&E framework (Act 1.1 and 2.1). Chemist 3000 10 Review of contaminant data of the CLME and assessment of transboundary implications and draft TDA section (Act 1.1). Assist in the development of contaminant component of the REMP (Act 2.3) and draft section of CLME status report. Fisheries Governance expert 3000 75 Development of options paper, promotion of preferred option, facilitate framework negotiations, promotion of membership of relevant regional and international treaties (Act 2.3)

ANNEX D: STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT PREPARATION ACTIVITIES AND THE USE OF FUNDS A. EXPLAIN IF THE PPG OBJECTIVE HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THE PPG ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN.

The PDF-B objective was fully achieved through the activities and workshops carried out during the preparatory phase. Emphasis during this stage was on the collation and analysis of information to support project design, achievement of agreement among all participating countries and partners on the project strategy, and elaboration of the Project Document and annexes in accordance with GEF and UNDP requirements. Activities therefore centered initially on the elaboration of the preliminary TDA, in keeping with GEF practice in GEF 3. Given the scope and complexity of the Caribbean region, the collection and analysis of information was undertaken through a suite of sub-regional and thematic TDA reports. The five sub-regions were covered through three reports, namely:  Thematic Report for the Central/South America Sub-region  Thematic Report for the Guianas Brazil Sub-region  Thematic Report for the Insular Caribbean Sub-region

In addition to this, two thematic reports were prepared to address key technical and governance cross-cutting issues:  Living Marine Resource Governance for the Wider Caribbean with particular Emphasis on Non- Extractable Resources and LME Level Monitoring and Reporting  Governance of Transboundary Fisheries Resources in the Wider Caribbean

These Thematic Reports were then synthesized, as called for in the PDF-B, into a single document, Overview of the Sub-regional Preliminary Transboundary Diagnostic Analyses for the Caribbean Large Marine Ecosystem and its Adjacent Region, the North Brazil Shelf. In addition to this, also in accordance with GEF requirements, a Preliminary Sub-regional, Regional and International Stakeholder Assessment Report” was also prepared. Elaboration of these documents was preceded by a capacity building workshop that provided training to a group of experts nominated by the countries in the TDA-SAP methodology. These experts then lead or participated in the preparation of the thematic reports, and contributed to strengthening understanding of the proposed project objective in their respective countries and in sub-regional fora. As part of the TDA process, surveys were sent out to all countries in order to determine and gauge countries' main concerns and priorities with regards to management of transboundary living marine resources. The survey delved into countries' perceptions of the root causes of the three priority issues identified: over-Fishing, pollution and contamination, and habitat degradation. Another aspect covered by the questionnaire related to impacts of fishing effort and land-based sources of pollution between neighboring countries. Finally countries were requested to identify the information and capacity building requirements, as well as interventions that would be most effective to address priority issues. The results of the survey served to inform project design. Using as main inputs the preliminary TDAs’ Overview Report and a draft Concept paper, a regional technical workshop was held in Jamaica in late February 2007. The main purpose of the event was to develop the technical components of the draft Full-Sized Project (FSP) document for review by the CLME Steering Committee and other project partners; to identify and agree on the interventions necessary for inclusion in the FSP; to refine the demonstration projects to be included in the draft FSP proposal; and to agree on the components of the FSP proposal. Based on the decisions and guidance forthcoming from this workshop, the project team with the support of UNDP and IOCARIBE proceeded to finalize a first full draft of the Project Document. This was subsequently presented to participating countries and partners at the Second and Final Steering Committee meeting held in June 2007. There was active participation by partners throughout the preparatory phase, who attended the two Steering Committee meetings and workshop held. This generated a real sense of ownership by a wide range of stakeholders that is reflected in the significant co-financing for the project. In addition, in keeping with GEF practice in GEF 3, a project Secretariat was established, hosted by CERMES at the University of West Indies.

B. DESCRIBE IF ANY FINDINGS THAT MIGHT AFFECT THE PROJECT DESIGN OR ANY CONCERNS ON PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION.

C. PROVIDE DETAILED FUNDING AMOUNT OF THE PPG ACTIVITIES AND THEIR IMPLEMTATION STATUS IN THE TABLE BELOW:

GEF Amount ($) Implementatio Project Preparation Activities Approved n Status Co- Amount Amount Amount Uncommitte financing($) Approved Spent Committed d Amount* 1. Agreement among countries, IAs, EA, other donors and participating Completed institutions, etc. on project coordination 190,100 189,971.62 0 128.38 71,500 and implementation arrangements.

2. Information synthesized and interpreted (preliminary TDA) to provide Completed recommendations on the work to be done 381,600 281,524.09 61,073.40 39,002.51 102,500 in the full project.

3. Complete GEF Executive Summary Completed and UNDP Project Document 128,300 79,645.88 42,704.33 5,949.79 39,000 Sub-Total 700,000 551,141.59 103,777.73 45,080.68 213,000 PDF-A Completed 18,836 18,836 16,844 Total 718,836 569,978 103,778 45,081 229,844

* Uncommitted funds will be returned to the GEF Trust Fund after the PDF-B operationally closes on 31 March 2008 when final amounts will be confirmed.