LIFEWEB PROJECT EXPRESSION OF INTEREST NOTES: • The total text provided should generally range between 3 and 5 pages. • Please attach any supporting materials with your submission. • Project Expressions of Interest are accepted in this PDF version and a user-friendly online version available at http://www.cbd.int/lifeweb/projectprofile . SECTION I: BASIC INFORMATION COUNTRY Federated States of Micronesia PROJECT TITLE UTILIZING EFFECTIVE REMOTE MANAGEMENT MECHANISMS TO ENHANCE THE FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA’S LANDSCAPE AND SEASCAPE CONNECTIVITY GEOGRAPHIC SCALE Please check one of the following. X Sub-national X National Multi-national SUBMITTED BY Please check one of the following. X Government Indigenous or Local Community NGO SCOPE Please check all that apply to this project. X Creating new protected area(s) X Strengthening management of existing protected area(s) X Improving the protected area enabling environment If this project’s scope involves the strengthening management of existing protected area(s) , please indicate the names of the area(s) that will be strengthened, among those registered in the World Data Base on Protected Areas (WDPA). If the area(s) are not registered in the WDPA, please indicate the complete name(s) and you will be contacted by the WDPA inviting you to register it. WDPA Registered: Non-WDPA Registered: 1. Oroluk Marine Sanctuary 1. Minto Reef Marine Sanctuary 2. Nukuoro Area of Biological Significance (ABS) 3. Esan Reef ABS 4. Namoluk ABS 5. Nomwin ABS 6. Nomwinweito ABS 7. Pollap ABS 8. Satawal ABS 9. Woleai Atoll ABS 10. Sorol ABS 11. Ulithi ABS 12. Ngulu ABS MAP AND PICTURES Please attach a map situating the project area. If possible, please send at least two pictures and any additional media of the area. See country map (project area) at following URLs http://www.visit-fsm.org/ or http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/statesmicronesia.jpg ; see picture attachments below SECTION II: PROJECT DESCRIPTION LOCAL CONTEXT AND PROBLEMS TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE PROJECT Please describe the area context and challenges (including threats to biodiversity ) being faced. You are welcome to attach supporting documents. The Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) 1 is the largest and most diverse part of the greater Micronesian sub-region of the vast Pacific region. It is a federation of four semi-autonomous island States, in geographic sequence from east to west - Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap - comprised of 607 islands with land elevation ranging from sea level to the highest elevation of about 2,500 feet (760 m). FSM’s total landmass is 438 square miles (702 km²), with a declared Exclusive Economic Zone covering over 1 million square miles (1.6 million km²). Traditional, social and cultural institutions are still very strong in Micronesia. Micronesian society is based on the extended family, which is responsible for the family welfare, especially in relation to customary family land. The indigenous population is Micronesian with most of the people residing on the main islands of the State capitals. Its marine and terrestrial biodiversity are the nation’s living wealth in which species endemism is high among the terrestrial biota. The high endemism within the nation is a direct result of the isolation of the islands to one another and to other landmasses in the greater Micronesian region. Land and aquatic tenure varies between States where the two most Eastern States – Kosrae and Pohnpei, land is both privately and State owned, while aquatic areas are managed by the State as public trusts. In Chuuk, most land and aquatic areas are privately owned and acquired through inheritance, gift or, recently, by purchase. In Yap, almost all land and aquatic areas are owned or managed by individual estates and usage is subject to traditional control. In all States, land cannot be sold to non-citizens of the FSM, thus these land and aquatic ownership patterns greatly influence the strategies and actions required to sustainably manage the biodiversity of the nation. Thus a necessity in engaging these local stakeholders to raise their awareness on and address certain threats which include explicit increasing pressures from climate change, resource over-harvest, non-application of efficient- selective technology and land-based sources of pollution. The responsibility for environmental issues is shared between the FSM National Government and the individual FSM State governments. The sharing of responsibility has at times resulted in legislation that appears duplicated at the State and National levels. It has also resulted in gaps in legislation and areas in which the location of responsibility between the State and National Governments has been less than clear. Each State has made efforts to control development and manage natural resources through the creation of land use plans, coastal zone plans, legislation and regulations. The National Government provides guidance and technical assistance to the States when needed and requested on matters related to planning, economic development, natural resources, fisheries, and the environment. The Federated States of Micronesia Protected Areas Network (FSM-PAN) Project <http://www.protectedareas.org/ > has been developed to address the Convention on Biological Programme of Work on Protected Areas in which the project’s four outcomes set the foundation of establishing a protected areas network to address the above mentioned natural resource management issues in a systematic framework. Most of the FSM’s existing PAs use a combination of traditional and legislative controls. This dual authority approach has been quite successful, and it is locally perceived to 1 http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/islands_oceans_poles/statesmicronesia.jpg be an effective way of establishing protected areas. The development of a national protected areas network offers a major opportunity to provide a framework for the FSM’s national and state governments to collaborate on the dual objectives of protecting the country’s terrestrial and marine biodiversity and assisting with local management of natural resources through establishing an interconnected network of protected areas. The decentralized political situation in the FSM and the prevalence of private and/or traditional control of lands and waters throughout the nation necessitates broad public consultations to build public understanding of and will toward the importance of conservation and the role of protected areas. In addition, many of the nation’s areas of biodiversity significance are remote and isolated, requiring a significant management role by local communities and land-owners. It is envisioned that most protected areas will be initiated at the community level, where they will be well-supported locally and address local resource over-exploitation concerns. Involving as many stakeholders as possible in the development of the national protected areas network will ensure eventual success. ECOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTION Please indicate the extent to which the area(s) is/are ecological priority(s) for the national protected area system, based on contribution to ecological representation, connectivity, viability and/or irreplaceability within the protected area system. If possible, please refer to the national ecological gap analysis or other geographic prioritisation exercises and attach supporting documents. Through a 2003 enabling activity under the FSM National Biodiversity Strategic Plan Project <http://www.fsmgov.org/biodiv02.pdf >, a geographic prioritization exercise was conducted by FSM national and state governments, technical partners, institutional and local experts which identified 130 Areas of Biological Significance (ABS) nation-wide where produced a Blueprint for Conserving the Biodiversity of the FSM <http://conserveonline.org/library/MicroPg1-47_main.pdf/view.html >. Currently the FSM-PAN Project is conducting gap analysis iterations utilizing the MARXAN analysis tool and collaborating with similar on-going geographical prioritization projects (e.g. FSM Forestry State-wide Assessment and Resource Strategies Project), gap assessment projects (e.g. FSM Atoll Food Security Vulnerability and Adaptive Assessment) and geodatabase project. OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS Please provide a brief description of objectives and estimate of funding required for each, as well as the overall expected results. FUNDING OBJECTIVES EXPECTED RESULT REQUIRED 1. Strengthening existing and garnering more $ 35,405 ••• Increased Organizational Signatories to the social and political support on national and sub- FSM National Implementation Support national remote management schemes Partnership Agreement for through existing effective and innovative Implementation of COP-7 Program of Work engagement mechanisms (FSM-NISP) and institutional commitment ••• Enabling environment for enhanced protected areas network incorporating landscape and seascape connectivity ••• Proactive integrative traditional, sub- national and national governance system on a remote management network ••• Contributing to the Micronesia Challenge targets 2. Promoting connectivity and creating $ 63,392 ••• Demonstrating landscape and seascape appropriate linkages amongst the targeted linkages within a national context remote sites within FSM Protected Areas ••• Food Security vulnerability and adaptive Network (FSM-PAN) coverage to enhance baseline set through an integrative atoll climate change adaptation and/or resiliency ecosystem assessment of targeted FSM outlying atolls ••• Expanding