Strengthening Coastal and Marine Resource Management in the Coral Triangle of the Pacific – Phase 1

FINAL REPORT

PREPARED FOR ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK

RETA 6471: STRENGTHENING COASTAL AND MARINE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN THE CORAL TRIANGLE OF THE PACIFIC – PHASE 1

BY UNIQUEST PTY LTD

In association with The University of Queensland’s Centre for Marine Studies

MAY 2010

VOLUME 4: CONTENTS

14. Biodiversity Tracking Tools a. Vanuatu Tracking Tool b. Timor Leste Tracking Tool c. Papua New Guinea Tracking Tool d. Solomon Islands Tracking Tool GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

VANUATU - GEF BIODIVERSITY TRACKING TOOLS

A. Overview

1. Conservation in Vanuatu is not aligned to western notions of state owned lands. With virtually all land owned privately conservation goals are being delivered through the management responsibility that is derived from community based natural resource management.

2. For the marine sector conservation for biodiversity objectives does not exist within any of the legally gazetted sites other than the Whale Sanctuary that includes 100% of the EEZ of Vanuatu see Figure below. Formally gazetted sites include a World Heritage site for cultural objectives, the whale sanctuary and the President Coolidge ship wreck site in Santo.

Fisheries Act 2005 IUCN Fisheries Act 2005 World Heritage (i) Million Dollar Point and - via Wellington Convention Chief Rio Mata Domain President Coolidge Marine Formal/Gazzetted Cultural Sanctuary(100ha) Vanuatu Whale Sanctuary Areas Category (iii), (v), (vi) - wreck and dive site Total EEZ 886.31ha 1,237.42 ha buffer

Matnakara Park Nguna Pele Marine (ELMA) Protection Network Formal North Efate and Offshore Areas 19,000 ha Agreed Planning Unit Only Islands 3,800 ha (16 communities)

Tabu EFATE LMMAs Santos LMMAs EPI LMMAs Community (30) (4-6) (2) Managed areas

3. Other areas that are formally recognized but as yet are not gazetted as protected areas include the ELMA project site with the current status of a separate planning unit and the Nguna Pele Marine protection network which is a community driven initiative to promote eco tourism.

4. GEF Biodiversity tracking tools are applied to the World Heritage site, the Matrakana Park, and the Nguna Pele marine network. There are no staff assigned to biodiversity conservation in the FD and within the DoE the Biodiversity Staff have no role in field activities.

5. None of the areas above have official agency staff or budgets assigned to them. The Tabu areas are not included as the objectives are rarely conservation although they may deliver conservation benefits as externalities. As agreed with ADB no such areas are included in the tracking tools.

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

APPENDIX H: WEST EFATE TRACKING TOOL

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Coastal and Marine Resources in the Coral Triangle of the Pacific 2. Project Type (FSP): 3. Project ID (GEFSec 3591): 4. Project ID (42073): 5. Implementing Agency: 6. Country(ies): Vanuatu

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program T Tiwok Senior Dept of Inclusion Biodiversity Environment officer

L Saunders CTI T Obud Consultants Uniquest Consulting FSP 7. Project Mid-term n/a Director Environment Unit Final Evaluation/project completion Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ____4___ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

9. GEF Strategic Program: Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems at the National Level (SP 1) X Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine PAs in PA Systems (SP 2) Strengthening Terrestrial PA Networks (SP 3)

10. Project coverage in hectares:

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen Achievement Achievement at project at Mid-term at Final start Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type ELMA – North Efate 19,000ha 100 sq km Forest coastal of habitat 750 sq km managed coastal of habitat managed East Santo 150 sq km 50 sq km coastal habitat managed Epi Island 458 sq km Nil coastal habitat managed Habitat mapping for SANMA, 3,500 sqkm 1500 sq km MALAMP, SHEFA, PANAMA Habitat managed

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable. The areas below are allunder customary management and are expected to fall within IUCN Category VI Community managed resources.

Name of Protected Is this a Area in Global designation or Local Designation IUCN Category for each Area new Hectares— priority lists of Protected Area Protected Area1 protected please (E.g., Biosphere (E.g, indigenous I II III IV V VI area? specify Reserve, World reserve, private Please biome type Heritage site, Ramsar reserve, etc.) answer site, WWF Global 200, yes or , etc.) no.

1 I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

1. ELMA Watershed Yes 19,000ha n/a Watershed * Primary Protection Forest 2. Chief Roy Mati No 886ha UNESCO World Cultural reserve Domain Heritage 3. Nguna Pele No 3,800 Community * Conservation Area 4. Vatthe No 2,000 Community * conservation area

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

Please complete the management effectiveness tracking tool for each protected area that is the target of the GEF intervention.

6 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Name, affiliation and contact details for person Lindsay Saunders, CTI Team Leader responsible for completing the METT (email etc.) [email protected]

Date assessment carried out 23 Sept 2009

Name of protected area Chief Roi Mata Domain

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) National IUCN Category International (please also Designations complete sheet overleaf )

Country Vanuatu

Location of protected area (province SHEFA Province, Eastern coast from Hat island to Lelepa and if possible map reference) and Moso Islands 2002 Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √

Management Authority Roi Mata Management Committee

Size of protected area (ha) 879ha core and 1275 ha buffer

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 1 nil

Annual budget (US$) – excluding Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary staff salary costs 0 funds

What are the main values for Cultural which the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives Protection of major cultural heritage site Management objective 1

Protection of linkage between chiefly system people and landscape in Management objective 2 Pacific

No. of people involved in completing assessment 9

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

Assessment was carried out as part of the GEF Please note if assessment was carried out in proposal preparation under the project Coastal and association with a particular project, on behalf Marine Resources Management in the Coral Triangle of an organisation or donor. of the Pacific (GEFSEC Project ID: 3591)

7 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical 2006 Chief Roy Mata Domain 886ha co-ordinates

s17 37 41.05 E168 10 39.79 Criteria for designation (iii) (v) (Vi) (i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding 3 earlty 17trh century sites on Efate, LElepa and Erartok associated with Universal Value the last paramount chief Roi Mata

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below

Name: Detail:

8 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterised as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A * 1.1 Housing and settlement ** 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas *** 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A * 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation * 2.1a Drug cultivation * 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations * 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area Threats from production of non-biological resources High Medium Low N/A * 3.1 Oil and gas drilling * 3.2 Mining and quarrying * 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A * 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) * 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) * * 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals * 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A * 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) * 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) * 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting *** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non- consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism * 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) ** 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

9 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A * 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) * 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) ** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values *** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) Shore ** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) *** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) * 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. High Medium Low N/A ** 10.1 Volcanoes ** 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis ** 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides ** 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

12. Specific cultural and social threats High Medium Low N/A *** 12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices *** 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values

10 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

*** 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc

11 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0

Does the protected area There is agreement that the protected area should be 1 have legal status (or in gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun the case of private reserves is covered by a The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but 2 covenant or similar)? the process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under

international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such Context as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the 0 regulations protected area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 1 1 Are appropriate area exist but these are major weaknesses regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 2 control land use and exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected 0 0 enforcement area legislation and regulations There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce 1 1 Can staff (i.e. those protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol with responsibility for budget, lack of institutional support) managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 enforce protected legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain area rules well The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 enough? legislation and regulations

Input

12 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 IUCN yes objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 MPA FD yes according to these objectives LMMA Yes but variable Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially 2 undertaken managed according to these objectives according to agreed objectives? The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet 3 3 Planning these objectives 5. Protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major 0 DEisgned via cmt planning design objectives of the protected area is very difficult

Is the protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 the right size and objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. shape to protect agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or species, habitats, introduction of appropriate catchment management) ecological processes Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 and water objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale catchments of key ecological processes) conservation concern? Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is 3 3 appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains Planning ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management 0 boundary authority or local residents/neighboring land users demarcation The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 1 authority but is not known by local residents/neighboring land users Is the boundary The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 2 known and authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not demarcated? appropriately demarcated

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 3 Process authority and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

13 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0

Is there a A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not 1 1 management plan being implemented and is it being A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented 2 implemented? because of funding constraints or other problems

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to +1 1 influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating +1 0 of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated +1 1 into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 0

Is there a regular A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 0 work plan and is it being implemented A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2 2

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3 0 Planning/Outputs 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, 0 0 Cultural objective not inventory species and cultural values of the protected area biodiversity Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 1 Do you have enough cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information to planning and decision making manage the area? Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 2 cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 3 Input cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

14 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not 0 0 effective in controlling access/resource use Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling 1 control access/resource access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling 2 area? access/resource use Process/Outcome Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0 Fisheries financined by JICA green snail reintroductions Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not 1 1 of management- directed towards the needs of protected area management orientated survey There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed 2 and research work? towards the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 3 Process which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being Is active resource implemented management being Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 2 undertaken? species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 3 Process ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 1 people employed to manage the Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management 2 protected area? activities

15 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 Inputs protected area

14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 0

Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected 1 trained to fulfil area management Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to 2 objectives? fully achieve the objectives of management

Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3

protected area Inputs/Process

15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 0

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and 1 sufficient? presents a serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to 2 fully achieve effective management Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management 3 needs of the protected area 16. Security of There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is 0 0 budget wholly reliant on outside or highly variable funding There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not 1 Is the budget function adequately without outside funding secure? There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the 2 protected area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding Inputs There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management 3 needs 17. Management of Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines 0 0 budget effectiveness (e.g. late release of budget in financial year)

16 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 critical management needs? Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3 Process

18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 0

Is equipment sufficient There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for 1 1 for management needs? most management needs There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain 2 management Input There are adequate equipment and facilities 3

19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0 0 equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities 1 Is equipment adequately maintained? There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities 2

17 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the 0 0 and water use needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the 1 use planning recognise long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the protected area and the area aid the achievement of Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the 2 objectives? long term needs of the protected area Planning Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long 3 term needs of the protected area

Additional points: Land and water planning 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing +1 1 planning for habitat the protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conservation conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats. 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 0 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow connectivity migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 1 planning for particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, ecosystem services quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire & species management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)" conservation 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or 0 0 commercial neighbours corporate land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 1 Is there co-operation corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 2 water users? corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management

18 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 23. Indigenous Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating 0 people to the management of the protected area

Do indigenous and Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions 1 traditional peoples relating to management but no direct role in management resident or regularly using the protected Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 2 area have input to decisions relating to management but their involvement could be management improved decisions?

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant 3 3 decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

24. Local Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the 0 communities management of the protected area Local communities have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do local communities management but no direct role in management resident or near the Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions 2 protected area have relating to management but their involvement could be improved input to management decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating 3 3 to management, e.g. co-management Process Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or +1 Cmty are managers communities indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programs to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected +1 1 communities area resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these 1 providing economic are being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 2 communities, e.g.

19 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question income, employment, There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 payment for activities associated with the protected area environmental services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall 1 1 Are management strategy and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system 2 against but results do not feed back into management performance? A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented 3

and used in adaptive management Planning/Process

27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of 1 1 adequate? visitation Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of 2 visitation but could be improved Outputs Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 3

28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators 0 tourism operators using the protected area High demand tourism There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is 1 attraction supported by Do commercial tour largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters sector operators contribute There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators 2 to protected area to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators 3 1

to enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0

If fees (i.e. entry fees Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or 1 or fines) are applied, its environs

20 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question do they help Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area 2 2 protected area and its environs management? Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected 3 area and its environs Inputs/Process 30. Condition of Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being values severely degraded 0

What is the condition Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely of the important degraded 1 1 values of the protected area as Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially compared to when it degraded but the most important values have not been significantly 2 was first designated? impacted Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact Outcomes 3

Additional Points: Condition of values 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 0 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programs are being implemented to address +1 0 In part ie green snail but wider values threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values issues remain unaddressed

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values +1 0 values are a routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 41 44%

21 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

GEF TRACKING TOOL ELMA MATRAKANA PARK Section One: Project General Information

7. Project Name: Coastal and marine Resources of the Pacific Coral Triangle 8. Project Type (FSP): 9. Project ID (GEF3591): 10. Project ID (IA42073): 11. Implementing Agency: SHEFA Province Administration 12. Country(ies): Vanuatu

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program T Tiwok Senior Dept of Inclusion Biodiversity Environment officer

L Saunders CTI T Obud Consultants Uniquest Consulting FSP 7. Project Mid-term Final Evaluation/project completion Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ___4____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen Achievement Achievement at project at Mid-term at Final start Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

ELMA – North Efate 19,000ha Forest

750 sq km unknown coastal of habitat managed East Santo 150 sq km Unknown coastal habitat managed Epi Island 458 sq km Unknown coastal habitat managed Habitat mapping for SANMA, 3,500 sqkm Unknown MALAMP, SHEFA, PANAMA Habitat managed

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable. Areas are under customary management and as such are expected to fall in IUCN Category VI – Community Managed Resources

Name of Protected Is this a Area in Global designation or Local Designation IUCN Category for each Area new Hectares— priority lists of Protected Area Protected Area2 protected please (E.g., Biosphere (E.g, indigenous I II III IV V VI area? specify Reserve, World reserve, private Please biome type Heritage site, Ramsar reserve, etc.) answer site, WWF Global 200, yes or , etc.) no.

2 I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

1. ELMA Watershed Yes 19,000ha n/a Watershed * Primary Protection Forest 2. Chief Roy Mati No 886ha UNESCO World Cultural reserve Domain Heritage 3. Nguna Pele No 3,800 Community * Conservation Area

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

26 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Name, affiliation and contact details for person Lindsay Saunders, CTI Team Leader responsible for completing the METT (email etc.) [email protected]

Date assessment carried out 23 Sept 2009

Name of protected area ELMA Matnakara Park

WDPA site code (these codes can be n/a found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) National IUCN Category International (please also Designations Watershed protection complete sheet overleaf )

Country Vanuatu

Location of protected area (province Shefa Province, Efate Island upper watersheds for central of and if possible map reference) Island 2005 Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) Community

SHEFA Province ELMA Project Office, Council of Chiefs, stakeholder Management Authority forum

Size of protected area (ha) 19,000ha of primary rainforest

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 2 26 ranger volunteers

Annual budget (US$) – excluding Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary staff salary costs USD 6,000 funds

What are the main values for Top to the Reef management - Watershed protection from logging which the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives Protection of EFATE watershed catchments Management objective 1

Management objective 2 Protection of Forest and development of sustainable income

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

27 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Date listed

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding

Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

Please list other N/A

Name: Detail:

28 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

2. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A ** 1.1 Housing and settlement ** 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas *** 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A * 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation * 2.1a Drug cultivation ** 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations * 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

3. Energy production and mining within a protected area Threats from production of non-biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 3.1 Oil and gas drilling ** 3.2 Mining and quarrying ** 3.3 Energy generation, including from hydropower dams

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

29 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A ** 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) ** 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area ** 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) ** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values *** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** * 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) * 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

30 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

*** 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc

31 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0

Does the protected area There is agreement that the protected area should be 1 1 have legal status (or in gazetted/covenanted but the process has not yet begun the case of private reserves is covered by a The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but 2 covenant or similar)? the process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under

international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such Context as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the 0 regulations protected area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 1 1 Are appropriate area exist but these are major weaknesses regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 2 control land use and exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected 0 0 enforcement area legislation and regulations There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce 1 Can staff (i.e. those protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol with responsibility for budget, lack of institutional support) managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 2 enforce protected legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain area rules well The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 enough? legislation and regulations

Input

32 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 according to these objectives Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially 2 2 undertaken managed according to these objectives according to agreed objectives? The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet 3 Planning these objectives 5. Protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major 0 design objectives of the protected area is very difficult

Is the protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 the right size and objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. shape to protect agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or species, habitats, introduction of appropriate catchment management) ecological processes Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 2 and water objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale catchments of key ecological processes) conservation concern? Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is 3 appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains Planning ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management 0 boundary authority or local residents/neighboring land users demarcation The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 1 authority but is not known by local residents/neighboring land users Is the boundary The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 2 known and authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not demarcated? appropriately demarcated

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 3 Process authority and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

33 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders +1 1 to influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and +1 1 updating of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely +1 1 incorporated into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 0

Is there a regular A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 0 work plan and is it being implemented A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2 2

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3 0 Planning/Outputs 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, 0 1 inventory species and cultural values of the protected area Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 1 Do you have enough cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information to planning and decision making manage the area? Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 2 cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 3 Input cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

34 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not 0 Aerial surveillance network with effective in controlling access/resource use commercial helicopter Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling 1 control access/resource access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling 2 2 area? access/resource use Process/Outcome Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0

Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not 1 1 of management- directed towards the needs of protected area management orientated survey There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed 2 and research work? towards the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and 3 Process research work, which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being Is active resource implemented management being Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 2 undertaken? species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 3 Process ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 Strong Volunteer inputs

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 people employed to manage the Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management 2 2 protected area? activities

Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 protected area

35 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 0

Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected 1 trained to fulfill area management Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to 2 objectives? fully achieve the objectives of management

Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3

protected area Inputs/Process

15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 0

36 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 0 0

Is equipment sufficient There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for 1 for management needs? most management needs There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain 2 management Input There are adequate equipment and facilities 3

Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 awareness There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme 1 Is there a planned education There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly 2 2 programme linked to meets needs and could be improved the objectives and needs? There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and 3 Process awareness programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the 0 and water use needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the 1 1 use planning recognise long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the protected area and the area aid the achievement of Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the 2 objectives? long term needs of the protected area Planning Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long 3 term needs of the protected area

37 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question Additional points: Land and water planning 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing +1 1 planning for habitat the protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conservation conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats. 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 0 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow connectivity migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 1 planning for particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, ecosystem services quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire & species management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)" conservation 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or 0 commercial neighbours corporate land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 1 Is there co-operation corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 2 water users? corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 23. Indigenous Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating 0 Controlled by Commuinity people to the management of the protected area

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant 3 3 decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

38 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 24. Local Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the 0 communities management of the protected area Local communities have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do local communities management but no direct role in management resident or near the Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions 2 protected area have relating to management but their involvement could be improved input to management decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating 3 3 to management, e.g. co-management Process Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or +1 1 Community are managers communities indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programs to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected +1 1 communities area resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these 1 providing economic are being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall 1 1 Are management strategy and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system 2 against but results do not feed back into management performance? A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented 3

and used in adaptive management Planning/Process

39 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators 0 tourism operators using the protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is 1 1 Do commercial tour largely confined to administrative or regulatory matters operators contribute There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators 2 to protected area to enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators 3

to enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0 0

If fees (i.e. entry fees Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or 1 or fines) are applied, its environs do they help Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area 2 protected area and its environs management? Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected 3

area and its environs Inputs/Process 30. Condition of Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being values severely degraded 0

What is the condition Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely of the important degraded 1 values of the protected area as Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially compared to when it degraded but the most important values have not been significantly 2 impacted

40 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact

3 3 Outcomes

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values +1 0 values are a routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 47 51%

41 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

NGUNA PELE GEF BIODIVERSITY TRACKING TOOL Section One: Project General Information

13. Project Name: Coastal and Marine Resources of the Pacific Coral Triangle 14. Project Type (FSP): 15. Project ID (GEF 3591): 16. Project ID (IA 42073): 17. Implementing Agency: DoE/SHAFA PRovince 18. Country(ies):Vanuatu

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program T Tiwok Senior Dept of Inclusion Biodiversity Environment officer

L Saunders CTI T Obud Consultants Uniquest Consulting FSP 7. Project Mid-term Final Evaluation/project completion Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ___4____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen Achievement Achievement at project at Mid-term at Final start Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

ELMA – North Efate 19,000ha Forest

750 sq km coastal of habitat managed East Santo 150 sq km coastal habitat managed Epi Island 458 sq km coastal habitat managed Habitat mapping for SANMA, 3,500 sqkm MALAMP, SHEFA, PANAMA Habitat managed

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable.

Name of Protected Is this a Area in Global designation or Local Designation IUCN Category for each Area new Hectares— priority lists of Protected Area Protected Area3 protected please (E.g., Biosphere (E.g, indigenous I II III IV V VI area? specify Reserve, World reserve, private Please biome type Heritage site, Ramsar reserve, etc.) answer site, WWF Global 200, yes or , etc.) no.

1. ELMA Watershed Yes 19,000ha n/a Watershed * Primary Protection Forest

3 Falls into ioUCN category Vi see below I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

2. Chief Roy Mati No 886ha UNESCO World Cultural reserve Domain Heritage 3. Nguna Pele No 3,800 Community * Conservation Area

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

46 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Name, affiliation and contact details for person Lindsay Saunders, CTI Team Leader responsible for completing the METT (email etc.) [email protected]

Date assessment carried out 23 Sept 2009

Name of protected area Nguna Pele

WDPA site code (these codes can be n/a found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) National IUCN Category International (please also Designations Nil complete sheet overleaf ) (LMMA)

Country Vanuatu

Location of protected area (province Shefa Province, North Efate offshore island – 12 and if possible map reference) communities with Networked Tabu areas covering 3,800 ha 2003 Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √

Management Authority Nguna Pele MPA Management Committee

Size of protected area (ha) 3,800ha of coastal habitat

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 1 volunteers

Annual budget (US$) – excluding Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary staff salary costs funds

What are the main values for Reef management – to build tourism business which the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1 Protection of coastal habitat primarily for ecotourism

Management objective 2 Conservation for sustainable use

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

47 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Date listed

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding

Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfillment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below

Name: Detail:

48 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

3. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A * 1.1 Housing and settlement * 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas * 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation 2.1a Drug cultivation 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting *** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non- consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism ** 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) * 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

49 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A ** 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) ** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) *** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) * 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de-oxygenated, other pollution) * 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. High Medium Low N/A * 10.1 Volcanoes * 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis ** 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides ** 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

50 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0 0

international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such Context as community conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the 0 0 regulations protected area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 1 Are appropriate area exist but these are major weaknesses regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 2 control land use and exist but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected 0 0 enforcement area legislation and regulations There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce 1 Can staff (i.e. those protected area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol with responsibility for budget, lack of institutional support) managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 enforce protected legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain area rules well The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 enough? legislation and regulations

Input

51 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 Still in process of getting support objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed 1 1 for some of communities according to these objectives Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially 2 undertaken managed according to these objectives according to agreed objectives? The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet 3 Planning these objectives 5. Protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major 0 design objectives of the protected area is very difficult

Is the protected area Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 the right size and objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. shape to protect agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or species, habitats, introduction of appropriate catchment management) ecological processes Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 2 and water objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale catchments of key ecological processes) conservation concern? Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is 3 appropriate for species and habitat conservation; and maintains Planning ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management 0 The Tabu areas are known boundary authority or local residents/neighboring land users not demarcated however demarcation The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 1 1 some Tabu areas are still authority but is not known by local residents/neighboring land users being formed Is the boundary The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 known and authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not demarcated? appropriately demarcated

The boundary of the protected area is known by the management 3 Process authority and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

52 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0

A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Planning Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders +1 1 to influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and +1 1 Specified in MP constitution updating of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely +1 0 incorporated into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 0

Is there a regular A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 work plan and is it being implemented A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3 Planning/Outputs 9. Resource There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, 0 1 inventory species and cultural values of the protected area Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 1 Do you have enough cultural values of the protected area is not sufficient to support information to planning and decision making manage the area? Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 2 cultural values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and 3 Input cultural values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

53 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not 0 Community based compliance effective in controlling access/resource use Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling 1 1 control access/resource access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling 2 area? access/resource use Process/Outcome Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0 0

Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not 1 of management- directed towards the needs of protected area management orientated survey There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed 2 and research work? towards the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and 3 Process research work, which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being Is active resource implemented management being Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 2 undertaken? species, ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 3 Process ecological processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0

Inputs Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the 3 protected area

54 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 0

Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3

protected area Inputs/Process

15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 0

55 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question 18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 0 0

Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 awareness There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme 1 1 Is there a planned education There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly 2 programme linked to meets needs and could be improved the objectives and needs? There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and 3 Process awareness programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the 0 0 and water use needs of the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the 1 use planning recognise long term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the protected area and the area aid the achievement of Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the 2 objectives? long term needs of the protected area

56 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question Planning Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long 3 term needs of the protected area

Additional points: Land and water planning 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing +1 0 planning for habitat the protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conservation conditions (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats. 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 0 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow connectivity migratory fish to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 0 planning for particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, ecosystem services quality and timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire & species management to maintain savannah habitats etc.)" conservation 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or 0 commercial neighbours corporate land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 1 1 Is there co-operation corporate land and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or 2 water users? corporate land and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 23. Indigenous Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating 0 Controlled by Commuinity people to the management of the protected area

Do indigenous and Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions 1 traditional peoples relating to management but no direct role in management resident or regularly

57 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question using the protected Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 2 area have input to decisions relating to management but their involvement could be management improved decisions? Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant 3 3 Process decisions relating to management, e.g. co-management

24. Local Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the 0 communities management of the protected area Local communities have some input into discussions relating to 1 Do local communities management but no direct role in management resident or near the Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions 2 protected area have relating to management but their involvement could be improved input to management decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating 3 3 to management, e.g. co-management Process Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or +1 1 Community are managers communities indigenous people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programs to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected +1 1 communities area resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these 1 providing economic are being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation

58 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall 1 1 Are management strategy and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system 2 against but results do not feed back into management performance? A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented 3 and used in adaptive management Planning/Process 27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

to enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0 Linked to ecotourism initiative If fees (i.e. entry fees Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or 1 or fines) are applied, its environs do they help Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area 2 2 protected area and its environs management? Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected 3

area and its environs Inputs/Process 30. Condition of Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being values severely degraded 0

59 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one Comment/Explanation Next steps box per question Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely What is the condition degraded 1 of the important values of the Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially protected area as degraded but the most important values have not been significantly 2 2 compared to when it impacted was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact

3 Outcomes

Additional Points: Condition of values 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 0 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programs are being implemented to address +1 0 values threats to biodiversity, ecological and cultural values

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values +1 0 values are a routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 30 32%

60 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Coastal and Marine Resources of the Pacific Coral triangle 2. Project Type (MSP or FSP) FSP: 3. Project ID (GEF 3591): 4. Project ID (IA 42073): 5. Implementing Agency: NDFA 6. Country(ies): Timor Leste

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program Lindsay CTI Team Uniquest Ltd Inclusion Saunders Leader

Rui Pinto CTI National Uniquest Ltd Facilitor Uniquest Ltd Jo Akroyd CTI Environment Directorate Lucio Babo Biodiversity National Fisheries and Officer Aquaculture Celestino Mgt Fisheries Directorate (NFAD) Barreto Resources NFAD

Mariana MPAs and NFAD Santos biodiveristy

Anselno Fisheries NFAD Amara Resources

Project Mid-term Final Evaluation/project completion

7. Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ___4____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen at Achievement Achievement project start at Mid-term at Final Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type NiniKonis Santana (national park) 125,000 ha 125000 Atauro and Batugade (area of 10,882 ha 1000 interest) 12,491 ha 1500

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable.

Name of Protected Is this a Area in Global designation or Local Designation of IUCN Category for each Area new Hectares— priority lists Protected Area (E.g, Protected Area1 protected please (E.g., Biosphere indigenous reserve, I II III IV V VI area? specify Reserve, World private reserve, etc.) Please biome type Heritage site, Ramsar answer yes site, WWF Global 200, , or no. etc.)

Nino Konis Santana No 125,699ha Marine habitat ** Atauro Island Yes 10,882, Community ** Conservation Area Batu Gade Yes 12, 491 ha Community ** Conservation Area

1 Atauro Island and Batugede are expected to fall into IUCN Category VI – see below

I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Lindsay Saunders, CTI Team Leader

[email protected]

Date assessment carried out 7th Oct 2009

Name of protected area Nino Konis Santana

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) National IUCN Category International (please also Designations II complete sheet overleaf )

Country Timor leste

Location of protected area (province and if Eastern Timor Leste possible map reference) 2008 Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √ √

Management Authority National Forest Directorate

Size of protected area (ha) 125689ha

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 7 nil

Annual budget (US$) – excluding Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary staff salary costs 10,000 funds

What are the main values for which Biodiversity the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives Protection of land and water landscape for biodiversity conservation Management objective 1

Management objective 2 Tourism

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

4 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment was carried out as part of the GEF proposal Please note if assessment was carried out in preparation under the project Coastal and Marine association with a particular project, on behalf of an Resources Management in the Coral Triangle of the organisation or donor. Pacific (GEFSEC Project ID: 3591)

5 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list)

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding

Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml)

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below N/A

Name: Detail:

6 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Second Site – Proposed Sites Lindsay Saunders, CTI Team Leader

[email protected]

Date assessment carried out 7th Oct 2009

Name of protected area Atauro Island And BatuGade

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) National IUCN Category International (please also Designations VI complete sheet overleaf )

Country Timor leste

Location of protected area (province and if North West Timor – Bilbao district – Batugade possible map reference) North Dili District Atauro Island n/a Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √ √

Management Authority NDFA

Size of protected area (ha) 12,491 plus 10,882 ha

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 0 0

Annual budget (US$) – excluding Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary staff salary costs 0 funds

What are the main values for which Marine habitat and biodiversity and cultural heritage, Corals seas grasses the area is designated and up wellings. List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1 Marine habitat conservation and livelihoods

Management objective 2 Ecotourism development and livelihoods

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

7 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Nino Konis Santana National Park Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A ** 1.1 Housing and settlement ** 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas ** 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A ** 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation ** 2.1a Drug cultivation ** 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations ** 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A ** 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) ** 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) *** 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting ** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism ** 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) ** 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

8 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A ** 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) ** 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area ** 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) ** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values ** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A *** 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) *** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals Cane toad, House sparrow ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) *** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) ** 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

10. Geological events Geological events may be part of natural disturbance regimes in many ecosystems. But they can be a threat if a species or habitat is damaged and has lost its resilience and is vulnerable to disturbance. Management capacity to respond to some of these changes may be limited. High Medium Low N/A ** 10.1 Volcanoes *** 10.2 Earthquakes/Tsunamis ** 10.3 Avalanches/ Landslides ** 10.4 Erosion and siltation/ deposition (e.g. shoreline or riverbed changes)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

12. Specific cultural and social threats High Medium Low N/A ** 12.1 Loss of cultural links, traditional knowledge and/or management practices ** 12.2 Natural deterioration of important cultural site values ** 12.3 Destruction of cultural heritage buildings, gardens, sites etc

9 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

10 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0

Does the protected area There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but 1 have legal status (or in the process has not yet begun the case of private reserves is covered by a The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the 2 covenant or similar)? process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community Context conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 3 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 0 regulations area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 1 Are appropriate exist but these are major weaknesses 1 regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist 2 control land use and but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 0 0 enforcement legislation and regulations There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1 Can staff (i.e. those area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, lack of with responsibility for institutional support) managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain rules well enough? The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 legislation and regulations Input

11 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 0 objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 1 these objectives Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed 2 undertaken according according to these objectives to agreed objectives? Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 3 objectives 5. Protected area design Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 0 the protected area is very difficult Is the protected area the right size and shape to Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 protect species, objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. habitats, ecological agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of processes and water appropriate catchment management) catchments of key Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 conservation concern? objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes) Planning Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for 3 3 species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc

12 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 boundary demarcation or local residents/neighboring land users The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 Is the boundary known is not known by local residents/neighboring land users and demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not appropriately demarcated Process The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority 3 3 and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0

Is there a management A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 1 plan and is it being implemented implemented? A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because 2 of funding constraints or other problems Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to +1 1 influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating +1 1 of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated +1 1 into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0

13 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 Is there a regular work plan and is it being A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2 2 implemented

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3

Planning/Outputs 9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 0 cultural values of the protected area Do you have enough Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 1 information to manage values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision the area? making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 2 2 values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 3 values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in 0 0 Planned for in the future controlling access/resource use Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource 1 control access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 area? Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 Process/Outcome resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0

Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed 1 1 of management- towards the needs of protected area management orientated survey and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 2 research work? the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 3 Process which is relevant to management needs

14 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 1 people employed to manage the protected Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 area? Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 3 Inputs

14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 1

Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 trained to fulfill Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully 2 management achieve the objectives of management objectives? Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3 protected area

Inputs/Process 15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0

15 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 1 1 Is the current budget serious constraint to the capacity to manage sufficient? The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully 2 achieve effective management The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 3 Inputs protected area 16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 0 reliant on outside or highly variable funding Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 1 1 adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected 2 Inputs area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 17. Management of Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0 0 budget (e.g. late release of budget in financial year) Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet critical Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 management needs?

Process Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3

18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 0

Is equipment sufficient There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for most 1 1 for management needs? management needs There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain 2 management Input There are adequate equipment and facilities 3

16 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 19. Maintenance of There is little or no maintenance of equipment and facilities 0 equipment There is some ad hoc maintenance of equipment and facilities 1 1 Is equipment adequately maintained? There is basic maintenance of equipment and facilities 2

Process There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness 3 programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0 0 and water use the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long 1 use planning recognise term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area the protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 2 aid the achievement of term needs of the protected area objectives? Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term 3 Planning needs of the protected area

Additional points: Land and water planning

17 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing the +1 0 planning for habitat protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions conservation (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats. 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 0 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish connectivity to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 0 planning for ecosystem particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and services & species timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire management to conservation maintain savannah habitats etc.)" 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate 0 commercial neighbours land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 1 Is there co-operation and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 2 2 water users? and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 23. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the 0 management of the protected area Do indigenous and traditional peoples Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating 1 resident or regularly to management but no direct role in management using the protected area have input to Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 2 management decisions? decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 3 3 relating to management, e.g. co-management

18 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 24. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 0 the protected area Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 1 resident or near the but no direct role in management protected area have Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to 2 input to management management but their involvement could be improved decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to 3 3 Process management, e.g. co-management Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous +1 1 Community are managers communities people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programmes to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area +1 0 communities resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 1 providing economic being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1 1 Are management and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 2 against performance? results do not feed back into management

19 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and 3 Planning/Process used in adaptive management

27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1 1 adequate? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but 2 could be improved Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 3 Outputs 28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 0 0 tourism operators protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 1 Do commercial tour confined to administrative or regulatory matters operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 2 protected area enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 3

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0 0

If fees (i.e. entry fees or Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its 1 fines) are applied, do environs they help protected area Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its 2 management? environs

Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected area 3 Inputs/Process and its environs 30. Condition of values Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded 0 What is the condition Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded of the important values 1

20 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question of the protected area as Some biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are being partially degraded 2 2 compared to when it but the most important values have not been significantly impacted was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3 Outcome Additional Points: Condition of values 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 0 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats to +1 0 In part ie green snail but wider values biodiversity, ecological and cultural values issues remain unaddressed

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a +1 1 values routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 42 45%

21 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Atauro Island and Batugade Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

2. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A ** (a) ** (b) 1.1 Housing and settlement ** (b) ** 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas ** 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A ** 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation ** 2.1a Drug cultivation ** 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations ** 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** **(b ) 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A *** 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) *** 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) *** 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting *** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism ** 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) ** 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

22 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A ** 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) ** 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area ** 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) *** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values *** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A *** 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) *** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals Cane toad, House sparrow ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) *** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) ** 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

23 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0 0

conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community Context conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 0 0 regulations area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 1 Are appropriate exist but these are major weaknesses regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist 2 control land use and but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

24 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 0 IUCN yes objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 1 MPA FD yes these objectives LMMA Yes but variable Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed 2 2 undertaken according according to these objectives to agreed objectives? Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 3 objectives 5. Protected area design Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 0 0 the protected area is very difficult Is the protected area the right size and shape to Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 protect species, objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. habitats, ecological agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of processes and water appropriate catchment management) catchments of key Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 conservation concern? objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes) Planning Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for 3 species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 0 boundary demarcation or local residents/neighboring land users The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 Is the boundary known is not known by local residents/neighboring land users and demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not appropriately demarcated Process The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority 3 and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

25 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 0

Is there a management A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 plan and is it being implemented implemented? A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because 2 of funding constraints or other problems Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to +1 1 influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating +1 0 of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated +1 0 into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 0

Is there a regular work A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 0 plan and is it being implemented A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2 0

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3 0 Planning/Outputs

9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 0 0 Cultural objective not biodiversity cultural values of the protected area Do you have enough Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 1 1 information to manage values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision the area? making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 2 0 values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making

26 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 3 0 values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in 0 0 controlling access/resource use Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource 1 control access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 area? Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 Process/Outcome resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0

Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed 1 of management- towards the needs of protected area management orientated survey and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 2 research work? the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 3 Process which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented Is active resource Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 2 management being ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key undertaken? issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological 3 processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented Process 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 0

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 people employed to manage the protected Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2

27 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question area? Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 3

Inputs 14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 0

Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 trained to fulfil Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully 2 management achieve the objectives of management objectives? Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3 protected area

Inputs/Process 15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 0

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 1 sufficient? serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully 2 achieve effective management Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 3 protected area 16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 0 0 reliant on outside or highly variable funding Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 1 adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected 2 Inputs area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 17. Management of Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0 0 budget (e.g. late release of budget in financial year) Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet critical Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 management needs?

28 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Is equipment sufficient There are some equipment and facilities but these are inadequate for most 1 for management needs? management needs There are equipment and facilities, but still some gaps that constrain 2 management Input There are adequate equipment and facilities 3

Process Equipment and facilities are well maintained 3 20. Education and There is no education and awareness programme 0 0 awareness There is a limited and ad hoc education and awareness programme 1 Is there a planned education programme There is an education and awareness programme but it only partly meets 2 linked to the objectives needs and could be improved and needs?

Process There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness 3 programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0 0 and water use the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long 1 use planning recognise term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area the protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 2 aid the achievement of term needs of the protected area

29 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question objectives? Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term 3 Planning needs of the protected area

Additional points: Land and water planning 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing the +1 0 planning for habitat protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions conservation (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats. 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 0 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish connectivity to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 0 planning for ecosystem particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and services & species timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire management to conservation maintain savannah habitats etc.)" 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate 0 0 commercial neighbours land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 1 Is there co-operation and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 2 2 water users? and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 23. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the 0 management of the protected area Do indigenous and traditional peoples Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating 1 resident or regularly to management but no direct role in management using the protected area have input to Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 2 management decisions? decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved

30 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 3 3 relating to management, e.g. co-management

24. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 0 the protected area Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 1 resident or near the but no direct role in management protected area have Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to 2 input to management management but their involvement could be improved decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to 3 3 Process management, e.g. co-management Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous +1 1 Cmty are managers communities people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programmes to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area +1 1 communities resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 1 providing economic being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1 Are management and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 2 against performance? results do not feed back into management

31 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

Are visitor facilities Visitor facilities and services are inappropriate for current levels of visitation 1 adequate? Visitor facilities and services are adequate for current levels of visitation but 2 2 could be improved

Visitor facilities and services are excellent for current levels of visitation 3 Outputs

28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 0 tourism operators protected area High demand tourism There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 1 attraction supported by Do commercial tour confined to administrative or regulatory matters operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 2 sector protected area enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 3 3

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0 0

32 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question was first designated? Biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are predominantly intact 3 Outcomes Additional Points: Condition of values 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 0 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programs are being implemented to address threats to +1 0 In part ie green snail but wider values biodiversity, ecological and cultural values issues remain unaddressed

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a +1 1 values routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 25 27%

33 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name Project Name: Coastal and Marine Resources of the Pacific Coral triangle 2. Project Type (MSP or FSP) FSP: 3. Project ID (GEF 3591): 4. Project ID (IA 42073 5. Implementing Agency: Dept. Environment and Conservation 6. Country(ies): Papua New Guinea

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program Lindsay CTI Team UniQuest Ltd Inclusion Saunders Leader

Peter Thomas Coastal and UniQuest Ltd Marine Specialist

Project Mid-term Final Evaluation/project completion

7. Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ___4____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Department of Environment and Conservation

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Kimbe Bay Network of Marine Protected Areas 1,336,549 ha’s Manus Island 2,200.000 ha’s TOTAL 3,536,549 ha’s

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen at Achievement Achievement project start at Mid-term at Final Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type Kimbe Bay Network of Marine 1,336,549 1,000,000 1,336,549 Protected Areas (Marine managed area) Manus Island (LMMA’s and areas of 2,200,000 1,000,000 interest)

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable.

Kimbe Bay No 1,336,549ha Marine ** habitat/LMMA’s Manus Island Yes 2,200,000 ha Tropical continental ** Island Terrestrial and Marine LM Conservation Areas

1 All sites are under customary ownership and management and are expected to fall under IUCN Category VI see below I. Strict Nature Reserve/Wilderness Area: managed mainly for science or wilderness protection II. National Park: managed mainly for ecosystem protection and recreation III. Natural Monument: managed mainly for conservation of specific natural features IV. Habitat/Species Management Area: managed mainly for conservation through management intervention V. Protected Landscape/Seascape: managed mainly for landscape/seascape protection and recreation VI. Managed Resource Protected Area: managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Peter Thomas, CTI Coastal and Marine Specialist

[email protected]

Date assessment carried out 29th Oct 2009

Name of protected area Kimbe Bay Network of Marine Protected Areas

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) Currently Local Level Govt. IUCN Category International (please also Designations designated LMMA’s VI ( anticipated) complete sheet overleaf )

Country Papua New Guinea

Location of protected area (province and if West New Britain Province (5º 15’ South; 150º 15’E ) possible map reference) Under implementation since 2007 Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √ √

Talasea, Hoskins and Bialla Local Level Governments ( at present Provincial or Management Authority National anticipated)

Size of protected area (ha) 1,336,549 anticipated area under eventual protection

Permanent Temporary Number of staff nil nil

Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary funds Annual budget (US$) – excluding NGO contribution $300,000/annum staff salary costs Provincial Government contribution K100,000 What are the main values for which Biodiversity, sustainable livelihoods the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives Protection of tropical coastal and marine ecosystems for biodiversity conservation Management objective 1

Management objective 2 Sustainable livelihoods

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Including: Other PA (tick PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO

4 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

5 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list) N/A

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding

Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/) N/A

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml) N/A

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.)

Please list other designations (i.e. ASEAN Heritage, Natura 2000) and any supporting information below N/A

Name: Detail:

6 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Second Site – Proposed Sites Peter Thomas, CTI Coastal and Marine Specialist

[email protected]

Date assessment carried out 29th Oct 2009

South Coast Manus Province /Pere Community Name of protected area (LMMA’s and new areas of interest) WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) Local IUCN Category International (please also Designations VI complete sheet overleaf )

Country Papua New Guinea

Location of protected area (province and if Manus Province ( South Coast) possible map reference) 2007 and still under implementation Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) √ √

Management Authority Local Level Government/ Pere Community

Size of protected area (ha) 6,000 ha’s to be extended to ~20,000.

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 1 NGO representative 0

Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary Annual budget (US$) – excluding 0 funds staff salary costs 20,000 NGO contributions What are the main values for which Tropical Coastal and Marine habitat and biodiversity /fish spawning the area is designated aggregations/cultural heritage/sustainable livelihoods List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1 Marine habitat conservation

Management objective 2 Sustainable livelihoods

No. of people involved in completing assessment 5

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff X NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

7 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Kimbe Bay Network of Marine Protected Areas Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

1. Residential and commercial development within a protected area Threats from human settlements or other non-agricultural land uses with a substantial footprint High Medium Low N/A ** 1.1 Housing and settlement ** 1.2 Commercial and industrial areas ** 1.3 Tourism and recreation infrastructure

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A ** 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation ** 2.1a Drug cultivation ** 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations ** 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A ** 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) ** 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) ** 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting ** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism ** 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) ** 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

8 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A ** 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) ** 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area ** 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) ** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values ** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A ** 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) ** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals Cane toad, House sparrow ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) ** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) ** 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

9 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0 The Kimbe Bay Network of Marine Continue the designation Protected Areas consists of a of remaining AOI’S. Does the protected area There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but 1 network of 15 Areas of Interest of have legal status (or in the process has not yet begun which 5?? have been designated as Locally Managed Marine Areas the case of private reserves is covered by a (LMMA’s) under Local Level The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the 2 2 Government law and the others are covenant or similar)? process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international all in the process of designation. conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community Context Eventually the entire Kimbe Bay conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) will be protected as a Marine The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 3 Managed Area under national law. 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 0 Management Plans are in place in Continue development of regulations area all 5 LMMA’s however there is still Management Plans for all Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 1 work to be done to secure the 15 AoI’s. Are appropriate exist but these are major weaknesses remainder and to provide overarching national or Provincial regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist 2 2 Develop overarching regulations. control land use and but there are some weaknesses or gaps management structure and activities (e.g. associated Macro plan for Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? Kimbe Bay protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 0 Community based protection and Develop overarching enforcement legislation and regulations enforcement is achieved in legislation to support There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1 1 designated areas with management community enforcement Can staff (i.e. those area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, lack of plans but broader, independent efforts and address external with responsibility for institutional support) management enforcement is threats required managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain rules well enough? The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 legislation and regulations Input

10 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 Designated LMMAs meet this Develop broad overarching objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 1 1 criteria and ranking however there objectives for the entire these objectives is a need to address overarching Kimbe Bay linked to Bay wide objectives. proposed national marine Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed 2 managed area status and undertaken according according to these objectives to agreed objectives? management structure Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 3 objectives 5. Protected area design Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 0 The design of the Kimbe Bay the protected area is very difficult Network of Marine Protected Areas Is the protected area the was the first to include scientific right size and shape to Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 principles aimed at achieving protect species, objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. resilience to climate change while habitats, ecological agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of protecting biodiversity and socio- processes and water appropriate catchment management) economic values catchments of key Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 conservation concern? objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes) Planning Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for 3 3 species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc

11 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 The boundaries of the LMMA’s are Achieve boundary demarcation or local residents/neighboring land users known locally and demarcated and national/Provincial The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 the general boundaries of the designation of Kimbe Bay Is the boundary known is not known by local residents/neighboring land users broader Kimbe Bay Network of and associated recognition Marine Protected Areas is of boundaries and demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 2 understood. authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not appropriately demarcated Process The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority 3 and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 Management plans are prepared for Establish Kimbe Bay all constituent LMMA’s however a management structure and Is there a management A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 management plan for the broader associated MP plan and is it being implemented Kimbe Bay network has still to be developed. implemented? A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because 2 2 of funding constraints or other problems Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to +1 1 All LMMA plan embraces influence the management plan stakeholder input 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating +1 of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated +1 1 into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 A workplan for the implementation

12 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 of the Kimbe Bay Network Design Is there a regular work exists and is being implemented by plan and is it being A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2 2 NGO’s and partners implemented

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3

Planning/Outputs 9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 0 Years of detailed data on all aspects cultural values of the protected area of the biodiversity and habitats of Do you have enough Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 1 Kimbe Bay exist and inform all information to manage values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision management and implementation the area? making activities Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 2 values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 3 3 values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in 0 These are most effective in the controlling access/resource use designated LMMA’s Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource 1 1 control access/resource use use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 area? Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 Process/Outcome resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0

13 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented Is active resource Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 2 management being ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key undertaken? issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological 3 processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented Process 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0 0 There are no formal PA Management staff per se – Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 management is achieved through community efforts supported by people employed to manage the protected NGO staff Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2 area? Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 3 Inputs

14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0 0

Inputs/Process 15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 The available funding constitutes the budget of the Implementing

14 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 1 1 NGO and a pledge of 100,000 Kina Is the current budget serious constraint to the capacity to manage from the Provincial Government to sufficient? The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully 2 support management ??? achieve effective management The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 3 Inputs protected area 16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 0 reliant on outside or highly variable funding Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 1 adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected 2 Inputs area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 17. Management of Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0 budget (e.g. late release of budget in financial year) Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 Is the budget managed to meet critical Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 management needs?

Process Budget management is excellent and meets management needs 3

18. Equipment There are little or no equipment and facilities for management needs 0

15 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Process There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness 3 programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0 Key industries include oil palm and and water use the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the forestry – Oil Palm operators do area take into account their impacts on Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long 1 the coastal marine environment in use planning recognise term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area their implementation of establishment and maintenance the protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 2 2 plans – but both oil palm and aid the achievement of term needs of the protected area objectives? forestry constitute risks to the bay Adjacent land and water use planning fully takes into account the long term 3 Planning through sedimentation. needs of the protected area

Additional points: Land and water planning 21a: Land and water Planning and management in the catchment or landscape containing the +1 planning for habitat protected area incorporates provision for adequate environmental conditions conservation (e.g. volume, quality and timing of water flow, air pollution levels etc) to sustain relevant habitats.

16 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 21b: Land and water Management of corridors linking the protected area provides for wildlife +1 1 planning for passage to key habitats outside the protected area (e.g. to allow migratory fish connectivity to travel between freshwater spawning sites and the sea, or to allow animal migration). 21c: Land and water "Planning addresses ecosystem-specific needs and/or the needs of +1 planning for ecosystem particular species of concern at an ecosystem scale (e.g. volume, quality and services & species timing of freshwater flow to sustain particular species, fire management to conservation maintain savannah habitats etc.)" 22. State and There is no contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate 0 commercial neighbours land and water users There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 1 Is there co-operation and water users but little or no cooperation with adjacent land and There is contact between managers and neighboring official or corporate land 2 2 water users? and water users, but only some co-operation Process There is regular contact between managers and neighboring official or 3 corporate land and water users, and substantial co-operation on management 23. Indigenous people Indigenous and traditional peoples have no input into decisions relating to the 0 management of the protected area Do indigenous and traditional peoples Indigenous and traditional peoples have some input into discussions relating 1 resident or regularly to management but no direct role in management using the protected area have input to Indigenous and traditional peoples directly contribute to some relevant 2 management decisions? decisions relating to management but their involvement could be improved

Process Indigenous and traditional peoples directly participate in all relevant decisions 3 3 relating to management, e.g. co-management

17 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question protected area have Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to 2 input to management management but their involvement could be improved decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to 3 3 Process management, e.g. co-management Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous +1 1 communities people, stakeholders and protected area managers 24b. Impact on Programmes to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area +1 1 communities resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 1 providing economic being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1 1 Are management and/or no regular collection of results activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 2 against performance? results do not feed back into management

A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and 3 Planning/Process used in adaptive management

18 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 0 tourism operators protected area There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 1 Do commercial tour confined to administrative or regulatory matters operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 2 protected area enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 3 3

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0

If fees (i.e. entry fees or Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its 1 1 fines) are applied, do environs they help protected area Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its 2 management? environs

19 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 1 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programmes are being implemented to address threats to +1 1 values biodiversity, ecological and cultural values

30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a +1 values routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 56 60%

20 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Manus / Pere Community LMMA/ Data Sheet 2

Please tick all relevant existing threats as either of high, medium or low significance. Threats ranked as of high significance are those which are seriously degrading values; medium are those threats having some negative impact and those characterized as low are threats which are present but not seriously impacting values or N/A where the threat is not present or not applicable in the protected area.

2. Agriculture and aquaculture within a protected area Threats from farming and grazing as a result of agricultural expansion and intensification, including silviculture, mariculture and aquaculture High Medium Low N/A ** 2.1 Annual and perennial non-timber crop cultivation ** 2.1a Drug cultivation ** 2.2 Wood and pulp plantations ** 2.3 Livestock farming and grazing ** 2.4 Marine and freshwater aquaculture

4. Transportation and service corridors within a protected area Threats from long narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that use them including associated wildlife mortality High Medium Low N/A ** 4.1 Roads and railroads (include road-killed animals) ** 4.2 Utility and service lines (e.g. electricity cables, telephone lines,) ** 4.3 Shipping lanes and canals ** 4.4 Flight paths

5. Biological resource use and harm within a protected area Threats from consumptive use of "wild" biological resources including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of specific species (note this includes hunting and killing of animals) High Medium Low N/A *** 5.1 Hunting, killing and collecting terrestrial animals (including killing of animals as a result of human/wildlife conflict) *** 5.2 Gathering terrestrial plants or plant products (non-timber) *** 5.3 Logging and wood harvesting *** 5.4 Fishing, killing and harvesting aquatic resources

6. Human intrusions and disturbance within a protected area Threats from human activities that alter, destroy or disturb habitats and species associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources High Medium Low N/A ** 6.1 Recreational activities and tourism ** 6.2 War, civil unrest and military exercises ** 6.3 Research, education and other work-related activities in protected areas ** 6.4 Activities of protected area managers (e.g. construction or vehicle use, artificial watering points and dams) ** 6.5 Deliberate vandalism, destructive activities or threats to protected area staff and visitors

21 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

7. Natural system modifications Threats from other actions that convert or degrade habitat or change the way the ecosystem functions High Medium Low N/A ** 7.1 Fire and fire suppression (including arson) ** 7.2 Dams, hydrological modification and water management/use ** 7.3a Increased fragmentation within protected area ** 7.3b Isolation from other natural habitat (e.g. deforestation, dams without effective aquatic wildlife passages) ** 7.3c Other ‘edge effects’ on park values ** 7.3d Loss of keystone species (e.g. top predators, pollinators etc)

8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes Threats from terrestrial and aquatic non-native and native plants, animals, pathogens/microbes or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity following introduction, spread and/or increase High Medium Low N/A ** 8.1 Invasive non-native/alien plants (weeds) ** 8.1a Invasive non-native/alien animals Cane toad, House sparrow ** 8.1b Pathogens (non-native or native but creating new/increased problems) *** 8.2 Introduced genetic material (e.g. genetically modified organisms)

9. Pollution entering or generated within protected area Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials or energy from point and non-point sources High Medium Low N/A ** 9.1 Household sewage and urban waste water ** 9.1a Sewage and waste water from protected area facilities (e.g. toilets, hotels etc) ** 9.2 Industrial, mining and military effluents and discharges (e.g. poor water quality discharge from dams, e.g. unnatural temperatures, de- oxygenated, other pollution) ** 9.3 Agricultural and forestry effluents (e.g. excess fertilizers or pesticides) ** 9.4 Garbage and solid waste ** 9.5 Air-borne pollutants ** 9.6 Excess energy (e.g. heat pollution, lights etc)

11. Climate change and severe weather Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global warming and other severe climatic/weather events outside of the natural range of variation High Medium Low N/A ** 11.1 Habitat shifting and alteration ** 11.2 Droughts ** 11.3 Temperature extremes ** 11.4 Storms and flooding

22 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Assessment Form

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 1. Legal status The protected area is not gazetted/covenanted 0 0 Some small LMMA’s such as the Work with Provincial Pere LMMA (4,019 Ha’srecognized Government to establish Does the protected area There is agreement that the protected area should be gazetted/covenanted but under local law in Manus Envornmental law which have legal status (or in the process has not yet begun will formally recognize community based the case of private reserves is covered by a LMMA’S The protected area is in the process of being gazetted/covenanted but the covenant or similar)? process is still incomplete (includes sites designated under international

conventions, such as Ramsar, or local/traditional law such as community Context conserved areas, which do not yet have national legal status or covenant) The protected area has been formally gazetted/covenanted 2. Protected area There are no regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected 0 regulations area Some regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area 1 Are appropriate exist but these are major weaknesses 1 regulations in place to Regulations for controlling land use and activities in the protected area exist 2 control land use and but there are some weaknesses or gaps activities (e.g. Regulations for controlling inappropriate land use and activities in the 3 hunting)? protected area exist and provide an excellent basis for management

Planning 3. Law The staff have no effective capacity/resources to enforce protected area 0 0 There are 2 Provincial Government enforcement legislation and regulations Environment and 1 NGO staff who There are major deficiencies in staff capacity/resources to enforce protected 1 1 is assisting communities and Can staff (i.e. those area legislation and regulations (e.g. lack of skills, no patrol budget, lack of providing guidance on peer with responsibility for institutional support) enforcement issues managing the site) The staff have acceptable capacity/resources to enforce protected area 2 enforce protected area legislation and regulations but some deficiencies remain rules well enough? The staff have excellent capacity/resources to enforce protected area 3 legislation and regulations Input

23 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 4. Protected area No firm objectives have been agreed for the protected area 0 The LMMAs have established clear To establish a broader objectives The protected area has agreed objectives, but is not managed according to 1 1 objectives which are largely Province wide these objectives adhered to by the community environmental legislation to support LMMA’s and Is management The protected area has agreed objectives, but is only partially managed 2 their implementation undertaken according according to these objectives to agreed objectives? Planning The protected area has agreed objectives and is managed to meet these 3 objectives 5. Protected area design Inadequacies in protected area design mean achieving the major objectives of 0 the protected area is very difficult Is the protected area the right size and shape to Inadequacies in protected area design mean that achievement of major 1 protect species, objectives is difficult but some mitigating actions are being taken (e.g. habitats, ecological agreements with adjacent land owners for wildlife corridors or introduction of processes and water appropriate catchment management) catchments of key Protected area design is not significantly constraining achievement of 2 2 conservation concern? objectives, but could be improved (e.g. with respect to larger scale ecological processes) Planning Protected area design helps achievement of objectives; it is appropriate for 3 species and habitat conservation; and maintains ecological processes such as surface and groundwater flows at a catchment scale, natural disturbance patterns etc 6. Protected area The boundary of the protected area is not known by the management authority 0 boundary demarcation or local residents/neighboring land users The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority but 1 Where LMMA’s are established Is the boundary known is not known by local residents/neighboring land users boundaries are well demarcated and demarcated? The boundary of the protected area is known by both the management 2 authority and local residents/neighboring land users but is not appropriately demarcated Process The boundary of the protected area is known by the management authority 3 3 and local residents/neighboring land users and is appropriately demarcated

24 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question 7. Management plan There is no management plan for the protected area 0 0 LMMA Management Plans exist as Strengthen the province does a province wide Sustainable wide Sustainable Is there a management A management plan is being prepared or has been prepared but is not being 1 Development Plan Development plan by plan and is it being implemented adding priorities for ICM and CCadpatation. implemented? A management plan exists but it is only being partially implemented because 2 2 of funding constraints or other problems Planning A management plan exists and is being implemented 3 Additional points: Planning 7a. Planning process The planning process allows adequate opportunity for key stakeholders to +1 1 influence the management plan 7b. Planning process There is an established schedule and process for periodic review and updating +1 1 of the management plan 7c. Planning process The results of monitoring, research and evaluation are routinely incorporated +1 1 into planning

8. Regular work plan No regular work plan exists 0 0

Is there a regular work A regular work plan exists but few of the activities are implemented 1 plan and is it being implemented A regular work plan exists and many activities are implemented 2

A regular work plan exists and all activities are implemented 3 Planning/Outputs

9. Resource inventory There is little or no information available on the critical habitats, species and 0 cultural values of the protected area Do you have enough Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 1 information to manage values of the protected area is not sufficient to support planning and decision the area? making Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 2 2 values of the protected area is sufficient for most key areas of planning and decision making

25 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question Input Information on the critical habitats, species, ecological processes and cultural 3 values of the protected area is sufficient to support all areas of planning and decision making

10. Protection systems Protection systems (patrols, permits etc) do not exist or are not effective in 0 Community peer pressure and controlling access/resource use leadership support control resource Are systems in place to Protection systems are only partially effective in controlling access/resource 1 use in LMMAs’ and will support control access/resource use broader Province wide marine conservation efforts. use in the protected Protection systems are moderately effective in controlling access/resource use 2 2 area? Protection systems are largely or wholly effective in controlling access/ 3 Process/Outcome resource use 11. Research There is no survey or research work taking place in the protected area 0 Extensive research on reef systems and SPAGS and marine resources Is there a programme There is a small amount of survey and research work but it is not directed 1 has been undertaken to inform of management- towards the needs of protected area management priorities and planning. orientated survey and There is considerable survey and research work but it is not directed towards 2 2 research work? the needs of protected area management There is a comprehensive, integrated programme of survey and research work, 3 Process which is relevant to management needs 12. Resource Active resource management is not being undertaken 0 management Very few of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, 1 1 species, ecological processes and cultural values are being implemented Is active resource Many of the requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, 2 management being ecological processes and, cultural values are being implemented but some key undertaken? issues are not being addressed Requirements for active management of critical habitats, species, ecological 3 processes and, cultural values are being substantially or fully implemented Process 13. Staff numbers There are no staff 0

Are there enough Staff numbers are inadequate for critical management activities 1 1 people employed to manage the protected Staff numbers are below optimum level for critical management activities 2

26 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question area? Staff numbers are adequate for the management needs of the protected area 3

Inputs 14. Staff training Staff lack the skills needed for protected area management 0

Are staff adequately Staff training and skills are low relative to the needs of the protected area 1 1 trained to fulfill Staff training and skills are adequate, but could be further improved to fully 2 management achieve the objectives of management objectives? Staff training and skills are aligned with the management needs of the 3 protected area

Inputs/Process 15. Current budget There is no budget for management of the protected area 0 0

Is the current budget The available budget is inadequate for basic management needs and presents a 1 sufficient? serious constraint to the capacity to manage The available budget is acceptable but could be further improved to fully 2 achieve effective management Inputs The available budget is sufficient and meets the full management needs of the 3 protected area 16. Security of budget There is no secure budget for the protected area and management is wholly 0 0 Funding for NGO support for reliant on outside or highly variable funding community in its implementation of Is the budget secure? There is very little secure budget and the protected area could not function 1 the LMMA is provided by NGO’s adequately without outside funding There is a reasonably secure core budget for regular operation of the protected 2 Inputs area but many innovations and initiatives are reliant on outside funding There is a secure budget for the protected area and its management needs 3 17. Management of Budget management is very poor and significantly undermines effectiveness 0 budget (e.g. late release of budget in financial year) Budget management is poor and constrains effectiveness 1 1 Is the budget managed to meet critical Budget management is adequate but could be improved 2 management needs?

27 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Process There is an appropriate and fully implemented education and awareness 3 programme 21. Planning for land Adjacent land and water use planning does not take into account the needs of 0 and water use the protected area and activities/policies are detrimental to the survival of the area Does land and water Adjacent land and water use planning does not takes into account the long 1 1 use planning recognise term needs of the protected area, but activities are not detrimental the area the protected area and Adjacent land and water use planning partially takes into account the long 2 aid the achievement of term needs of the protected area

28 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

29 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

24. Local communities Local communities have no input into decisions relating to the management of 0 the protected area Do local communities Local communities have some input into discussions relating to management 1 resident or near the but no direct role in management protected area have Local communities directly contribute to some relevant decisions relating to 2 input to management management but their involvement could be improved decisions? Local communities directly participate in all relevant decisions relating to 3 3 Process management, e.g. co-management Additional points Local communities/indigenous people 24 a. Impact on There is open communication and trust between local and/or indigenous +1 1 Traditional rights reside in communities people, stakeholders and protected area managers Communities which are essentially the mangers of natural resources. 24b. Impact on Programs to enhance community welfare, while conserving protected area +1 1 communities resources, are being implemented 24c. Impact on Local and/or indigenous people actively support the protected area +1 1 communities 25. Economic benefit The protected area does not deliver any economic benefits to local 0 communities Is the protected area Potential economic benefits are recognised and plans to realise these are 1 1 providing economic being developed benefits to local There is some flow of economic benefits to local communities 2 communities, e.g. income, employment, payment for There is a major flow of economic benefits to local communities from 3 environmental activities associated with the protected area services? Outcomes 26. Monitoring and There is no monitoring and evaluation in the protected area 0 evaluation There is some ad hoc monitoring and evaluation, but no overall strategy 1 Are management and/or no regular collection of results

30 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Issue Criteria Score: Tick only one box Comment/Explanation Next steps per question activities monitored There is an agreed and implemented monitoring and evaluation system but 2 against performance? results do not feed back into management A good monitoring and evaluation system exists, is well implemented and 3 3 Planning/Process used in adaptive management

27. Visitor facilities There are no visitor facilities and services despite an identified need 0

28. Commercial There is little or no contact between managers and tourism operators using the 0 tourism operators protected area Tourism is weak in There is contact between managers and tourism operators but this is largely 1 1 Manus. Do commercial tour confined to administrative or regulatory matters operators contribute to There is limited co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 2 protected area enhance visitor experiences and maintain protected area values management? There is good co-operation between managers and tourism operators to 3

enhance visitor experiences, and maintain protected area values Process 29. Fees Although fees are theoretically applied, they are not collected 0 0 Fees collected from tourism will go diret to local communities.. If fees (i.e. entry fees or Fees are collected, but make no contribution to the protected area or its 1 fines) are applied, do environs they help protected area Fees are collected, and make some contribution to the protected area and its 2 management? environs

Fees are collected and make a substantial contribution to the protected area 3 Inputs/Process and its environs 30. Condition of values Many important biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded 0 What is the condition Some biodiversity, ecological or cultural values are being severely degraded of the important values 1

31 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

3 Outcomes

Additional Points: Condition of values 30a: Condition of The assessment of the condition of values is based on research and/or +1 1 values monitoring 30b: Condition of Specific management programs are being implemented to address threats to +1 1 Planning for sustainable values biodiversity, ecological and cultural values development and climate change adaptation is underway as is protection of SPAGS and reef/lagoon systems through controls on fishing and gleaning are fundamental through LMMA’s 30c: Condition of Activities to maintain key biodiversity, ecological and cultural values are a +1 values routine part of park management

TOTAL SCORE 47 51%

32 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section One: Project General Information

1. Project Name: Coastal and Marine Resources of the Pacific Coral Triangle 2. Project Type (MSP or FSP) FSP: 3. Project ID (GEF 3591): 4. Project ID (IA 42073): 5. Implementing Agency: Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Meteorology / Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources ( Jointly) 6. Country(ies): Solomon Islands.

Name of reviewers completing tracking tool and completion dates:

Name Title Agency

Work Program Lindsay CTI Team UniQuest Ltd Inclusion Saunders Leader Peter Thomas Coastal/Marine UniQuest Ltd Specialist Willie Atu Country The Nature Program Conservancy Solomon Director Islands (Northern Isabel Review) Peter Marine/Fisheries The Nature Ramohia Scientist Conservancy Solomon Islands (Northern Isabel Review) Rudi Susarua Community Independent Fisheries Expert Consultant (Malaita Review) Project Mid-term Tbd Final Evaluation/project completion

7. Project duration: Planned__4_____ years Actual ___7____ years

8. Lead Project Executing Agency (ies): Department of Environment and Conservation

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

10. Project coverage in hectares:

Northern Isabel Province 200,000 ha’s Northeast Malaita Province 70.000 ha’s TOTAL 270,000 ha’s

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Targets and Timeframe Foreseen at Achievement Achievement project start at Mid-term at Final Evaluation of Evaluation of Project Project

Total Extent in hectares of protected areas targeted by the project by biome type Northern Isabel Province Network of 200,000 Nil 200,000 Community Based Resource Management Areas Northeast Malaita Province ( Lau 70,000 Nil 70,000 Lagoon area) Network of Community Based Marine Resource Areas

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Please complete the table below for the protected areas that are the target of the GEF intervention. Use NA for not applicable. These areas are under community ownership and management and fall under IUCN category VI Managed Resource Protected Area

Northern Isabel Yes 200,000ha N/A Community Based * Resource Management Area’s/ Coastal habitat North East Malaita( Yes 70,000 ha N/A Community Based * Lau Lagoon) Resource Management Areas/Coastal habitat

* Although not formally established as a protected area (under a legal PA system), these areas are under community-based control and will be managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural resources/ecosystems. Therefore they fall under IUCN’s Category No. VI, Managed Resource Protected Area.

GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Section Two: Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected Areas

Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites: Data Sheet 1

Name, affiliation and contact details for person Peter Thomas, CTI Coastal and Marine Specialist responsible for completing the METT (email, etc.) [email protected]

Date assessment carried out 21 November 2009

Northern Isabel Province Network of Community Based Resource Name of protected area Management Areas

WDPA site code (these codes can be N/A found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) Provincial Ordinance IUCN Category International (please also Designations designated CBRMA ( VI ( anticipated) complete sheet overleaf ) anticipated) N/A

Country Solomon Islands

Location of protected area (province and if Northern Isabel Province (8ºSouth, 159.30ºEast) possible map reference) N/A Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) State √

Management Authority Isabel Provincial Government with Local Communities

Size of protected area (ha) 200,000 ha’s anticipated area of CBRMA network

Permanent Temporary Number of staff nil nil

Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary Annual budget (US$) – excluding funds staff salary costs None

What are the main values for which Biodiversity, sustainable livelihoods the area is designated List the two primary protected area management objectives Protection of tropical coastal and marine ecosystems for biodiversity conservation Management objective 1

Management objective 2 Sustainable livelihoods and community well being

No. of people involved in completing assessment 10-12

Including: Other PA NGO √ (tick PA manager PA staff agency staff √

5 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

6 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Information on International Designations

UNESCO World Heritage site (see: whc.unesco.org/en/list) N/A

Criteria for designation

(i.e. criteria i to x)

Statement of Outstanding

Universal Value

Ramsar site (see: www.wetlands.org/RSDB/) N/A

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical number

Reason for Designation (see

Ramsar Information Sheet)

UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves (see: www.unesco.org/mab/wnbrs.shtml) N/A

Date listed Site name Site area Geographical Total: co-ordinates Core: Buffer: Transition:

Criteria for designation

Fulfilment of three functions of MAB (conservation, development and logistic support.) n/a

Name: Detail:

7 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Second Site – Proposed Sites Name, affiliation and contact details for person Peter Thomas, CTI Coastal and Marine Specialist responsible for completing the METT (email, etc.) [email protected]

Date assessment carried out 21 November 2009

Name of protected area North East Malaita Province ( Lau Lagoon)

WDPA site code (these codes can be found on www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/) Local IUCN Category International (please also Designations Provincial Ordinance VI complete sheet overleaf ) (anticipated) N/A

Country Solomon Islands

Location of protected area (province and if North East Malaita Province ( 9ºSouth , 161ºEast) possible map reference) N/A Date of establishment

State Private Community Other Ownership details (please tick) State Community/cust omary

Management Authority Provincial Government Local Communities

Size of protected area (ha) 70,000 ha’s

Permanent Temporary Number of staff 0 0

Recurrent (operational) funds Project or other supplementary Annual budget (US$) – excluding funds staff salary costs

What are the main values for which Tropical Coastal and Marine and Terrestrial habitats and biodiversity /fish the area is designated spawning aggregations/cultural heritage/sustainable livelihoods List the two primary protected area management objectives

Management objective 1 Marine habitat and biodiversity conservation

Management objective 2 Sustainable livelihoods and community well being

No. of people involved in completing assessment 2

Other PA Including: PA manager PA staff agency staff NGO (tick boxes) Local community Donors External experts Other

8 GEF-4 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Objective One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems

Protected Areas Threats: Northern Isabel Network of Community Based Resource Management Areas Data Sheet 2