united nations development programme web viewunited nations development programme. country: costa...

United Nations Development ProgrammeCountry: Costa Rica

PROJECT DOCUMENT

Conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystem services of internationally important protected wetlands

UNDAF Outcome(s): Outcome 3

Environmental Sustainability and Risk Management

UNDP Strategic Plan Environment and Sustainable Development Primary Outcome:

Growth and development are inclusive and sustainable, incorporating productive capacities that create employment and livelihoods for the poor and excluded

Expected CP Outcome(s): Strengthened mechanisms of rehabilitation and conservation of wetlands, protected areas and environmental service payments

Expected CPAP Output(s): Improved national capacities regarding responsible environmental management of watersheds, biodiversity and terrestrial and marine protected areas

Executing Entity/Implementing Partner: National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC)

Implementing Entity/Responsible Partners: United Nations Development Program (UNDP)

Agreed by (Government):

Date/Month/Year

Agreed by (Executing Entity/Implementing Partner):

Date/Month/Year

Agreed by (UNDP):

Date/Month/Year

Brief DescriptionThe project will improve the management of internationally important protected wetlands (IIPW) in Costa Rica in order to increase their conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services they provide. The country contains well over 350 wetlands, which cover close to 7% of the national territory, approximately 30% of which are formally protected and 12 of which have been declared internationally important by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar sites) based on their importance for conserving biodiversity. The project will yield substantial global environmental benefits by increasing the conservation and sustainable use of eleven (11) IIPW. The GEF alternative will increase wetland ecosystem representation within the national PA system by protecting an additional 12,063 hectares of critical wetlands. Additionally, the project will improve the management effectiveness of seven (7) IIPW covering 210,089 hectares through the following means: a) implementation of protection and control plans; b) physical demarcation of IIPW boundaries and ecologically sensitive wetland areas; c) implementation of a wetland ecological monitoring system that will use a set of indicators to track the conditions of key species and ecosystems and will guide decision-making and long-term planning; d) development of a local management program for seven (7) IIPW that will increase public awareness about the importance of wetlands and will promote stakeholder participation in IIPW planning and management; and e) strengthening skills of IIPW administrative staff in PA management, implementing measures for wetland conservation, and mitigating impacts to biodiversity in IIPW, including impacts from invasive species and climate change. Finally, the economic valuation of wetlands ecosystem goods and services and the implementation of three (3) financial mechanisms (payment for ecosystem services [PES] – incentive for ecosystem conservation; a pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility; and increased tourism revenues from wetland protected areas) will increase funding for IIPW, and will also provide meaningful incentives for the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands so as to reduce existing threats.

Total resources required 20,894,191Total allocated resources:

GEF 3,705,873 SINAC 8,062,710 Forever Costa Rica Program 1,000,000 UNDP 300,000

In-kind contributions: SINAC 7,225,608 GIZ/BIOMARCC Project 600,000

Programme Period: 2013-2017

Atlas Award ID: 00076970 Project ID: 00088054 PIMS #: 4966

Start date: March 2014 End Date: March 2019

Management Arrangements: NIMPAC Meeting Date

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALIDES Central American Sustainable Development AllianceAPR Annual Project ReportAWP Annual Work PlanBIOMARCC Coastal Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation projectCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCC Climate ChangeCCAD Constitutional Agreement of the Central American Environment and

Development CommissionCCT Tropical Science Center CEPA Communication, Education, Participation, and AwarenessCIMAR Research Center for Marine Sciences and LimnologyCONAC National Council of Conservation AreasCPAP Country Programme Action PlanEIA Environmental impact assessment ENSO El Niño South OscillationFONAFIFO National Fund for Forest FinancingFSS Financial Sustainability ScorecardGEF Global Environment FacilityGHG Greenhouse GasGIZ Development Cooperation AgencyGoCR Government of Costa RicaIADB Inter-American Development Bank ICE Institute of ElectricityICT Costa Rican Institute for TourismIIPW Internationally important protected wetlandsINCOPESCA Costa Rican Institute for Fisheries and AquacultureIR Inception ReportIW Inception WorkshopJICA Japanese International Cooperation AgencyLAC Latin America and the CaribbeanLCVS Law for the Conservation of WildlifeLOA Organic Environmental Law MAG Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockMETT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool for Protected AreasMINAE Ministry of the Environment and EnergyM&E Monitoring and EvaluationNGO Non-governmental OrganizationNIM National ImplementationNWC National Wetlands CommitteeOTS Organization for Tropical StudiesPA Protected AreaPES Payment for Ecosystem ServicesPIF Project Identification FormPIR Project Implementation ReviewPMU Project Management UnitPoWPA Program of Work on Protected AreasPPG Project Preparation GrantPROMEC Ecological Monitoring System of Costa Rica’s Protected Areas and Biological

Corridors

Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat

RBLAC UNDP Regional BureauRCU Regional Coordination UnitROAR Results-Oriented Annual ReportSBAA Standard Basic Assistance AgreementSC Steering CommitteeSINAC National System of Conservation AreasToR Terms of ReferenceTPC Tripartite CommitteeUNDAF United Nations Development Action FrameworkUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNDP CO United Nations Development Program Country OfficeUSD U.S. dollarsVCU Verified carbon unitVCS Verified Carbon Standard

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

1. SITUATION ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................6

1.1. Context and global significance......................................................................................................61.2. Threats, impacts, and root causes.................................................................................................121.3. Long-term solution........................................................................................................................151.4. Analysis of barriers.......................................................................................................................161.5. Stakeholder analysis......................................................................................................................171.6. Baseline analysis...........................................................................................................................18

2. STRATEGY...........................................................................................................................................20

2.1. Project rationale and policy conformity........................................................................................202.2. Country ownership: Country eligibility and country drivenness..................................................202.3. Design principles and strategic considerations.............................................................................212.4. Project objective, outcomes, and outputs/activities......................................................................262.5. Key indicators, risks, and assumptions.........................................................................................352.6. Financial modality........................................................................................................................372.7. Cost-effectiveness.........................................................................................................................372.8. Sustainability.................................................................................................................................382.9. Replicability..................................................................................................................................40

3. STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT............................................................40

3.1. Incremental Cost Analysis............................................................................................................403.2. Project Results Framework...........................................................................................................45

4. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN.......................................................................................................48

5. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS.......................................................................................................53

5.1. UNDP Support Services...............................................................................................................535.2. Collaborative arrangements with related projects.........................................................................545.3. Inputs to be provided by all partners.............................................................................................545.4. Audit arrangements.......................................................................................................................545.5. Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables.............545.6. Roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in project management...................................54

6. MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION................................................................................56

7. LEGAL CONTEXT................................................................................................................................62

8. ANNEXES..............................................................................................................................................64

8.1. Risk Analysis................................................................................................................................648.2. Terms of Reference for Key Project Staff....................................................................................678.3. Capacity Assessment....................................................................................................................708.4. Stakeholder Involvement Plan......................................................................................................708.5. Tracking Tool................................................................................................................................728.6. Projected carbon benefits of a REDD+ pilot project in the Palo Verde IIPW..............................73

1. SITUATION ANALYSIS

1.1. Context and global significanceEnvironmental context 1. Costa Rica is one of the 20 most biologically diverse countries in the world based on the number of species present, and has one of the highest density of species. Although the country covers only 0.03% of the world’s total terrestrial surface, 4.7% of the world’s known biodiversity is found in the country 1. Furthermore, the country has the highest level of diversity of known plant and vertebrate species in Central America. Costa Rica has established an extensive protected area (PA) system to aid in the protection of these high levels of biodiversity, which comprises 169 PAs under nine (9) different management categories.2 PAs cover 26% of the country’s continental territory and 2.64% of the exclusive economic zone. Currently Costa Rica’s PA system includes a total of 160 PA units. Costa Rica’s PA system is managed using an eco-regional approach, which was established by the country’s first conservation gap analysis in 1995-1996 known as the GRUAS I project, and which also introduced biological corridors and private conservation areas as elements of the national in-situ conservation strategy, emphasizing landscape-level conservation goals.

2. Costa Rica contains more than 350 wetlands, which cover close to 7% of the national territory 3, of which approximately 30% are formally protected and 12 have been declared internationally important by the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar sites) based on their importance for conserving biodiversity (e.g., for water birds and fish species), and/or for the representative, rare or unique wetland types contained therein (Table 1). With the exception of one PA, the internationally important sites all enjoy PA status (IIPW).4 Within these PAs there is a wide range of wetland ecosystems and high levels of biodiversity. These include endangered and endemic species such as the vulnerable manatee (Trichechus manatus), the endangered leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and the endemic salamander (Spaerodactylus pacificus). These wetlands also produce a wide range of ecosystem goods and services upon which many communities depend. The locations of Costa Rica’s IIPW are presented on Figure 1. Table 2 presents a summary of the seven (7) internationally important wetlands with PA designation that are prioritized for this project.

Table 1 – Internationally important wetlands of Costa Rica.Wetlands International site code

Ramsar site code

Site name Protected Area Ramsar site area

(ha)

RIS*

6CR001 540 Palo Verde Palo Verde National ParkLomas Barbudal Biological ReserveMata Redonda NWLRCipanci NWLRCorral de Piedra WetlandSonzapote wetland (not protected)

24,519 2001

6CR002 541 Caño Negro Caño Negro NWLR 9,969 19916CR003 610 Tamarindo Las Baulas National Park 500 19936CR004 782 Térraba-Sierpe Térraba-Sierpe Wetland 30,654 19956CR005 783 Gandoca-Manzanillo Gandoca Manzanillo NWLR 9,445 19956CR006 811 Humedal Caribe

NoresteTortuguero National ParkBarra del Colorado NWLRArchié Carr Protected ZoneCorredor Biológico Fronterizo NWLR

75,310 1996

1 Sistema Nacional de Áreas de Conservación SINAC. 2009. IV Informe de País al Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica. GEF-PNUD, San José, Costa Rica. Mimeografiado. 216 p.2 Idem.3 http://www.inbio.ac.cr/es/biod/estrategia/Paginas/ecosistema02.html4 http://www.sinac.go.cr/competencias/ASP/Paginas/SitiosDeclarInter.aspx

6CR007 940 Isla del Coco Isla del Coco National Park 99,623 19986CR008 981 Manglar de Potrero

GrandeSanta Rosa National Park 139 1999

6CR009 982 Laguna Respingue Santa Rosa National Park 75 19996CR010 1022 Cuenca Embalse Arenal 67,296 20006CR011 1286 Turberas de Talamanca Los Quetzales National Park

Los Santos Forestry ReserveChirripó National ParkTapantí National ParkRío Macho Forestry ReserveCerro Las Vueltas Biological Reserve

192,520 2003

6CR012 1918 Humedal Maquenque Maquenque NWLRCorredor Biológico Fronterizo NWLR

59,692 2010

* Last year of compilation of Ramsar Information Sheet.

Figure 1 – Locations of Costa Rica’s Internationally Important Protected Wetlands.

Table 2 – Internationally important wetlands with PA designation prioritized for this project.Name PA Category Total area (ha) Ecosystems and Species PresentCaribe Noreste Consists of

National Park and National Wildlife Refuge

75,310 ha This wetland features lakes, grass marshes, wooded swamps, gullies, streams, backwaters of large rivers, and estuarine lagoons. The wetland area is the main stopover and entrance to Costa Rica for most Neotropical migratory

birds, and provides habitat to the crested eagle (Morphnus guianensis). There are also several species of salamanders thought to be endemic to the area.

Caño Negro National Wildlife Refuge5

9,969 ha This wetland is a shallow freshwater lagoon with seasonally inundated marshes and woodland surrounding it. The wetland is used seasonally for breeding by many species of migrating water birds. The site supports small numbers of the locally endangered stork (Jabiru mycteria), important populations of the spectacled caiman (Caiman crocodilus fuscus), and the tropical gar (Atractosteus tropicus).

Gandoca Manzanillo

National Wildlife Refuge

9,445 ha This wetland includes a coastal lagoon consisting of coral reefs, seagrass beds, beaches, cliffs, and flooded lowland areas, with an uncommon vegetation association of swamp forests composed of “yolillo” (Raphia taedigera), Camnosperma panamensis, Prioria coparifera, and mangroves. The area is also important for nesting sea turtles inhabiting the Caribbean, and provides habitat to endangered or threatened species of birds, reptiles, mollusks and fish, crustaceans, and 32 coral species. It is part of the Talamanca-Caribe Biological Corridor.

Maquenque National Wildlife Refuge

59,692 ha This lagoon complex and palustrine ecosystem is part of the very humid tropical ecoregion with high biodiversity and is home the endangered species such as the Great Green Macaw (Ara ambigua), vulnerable species such as the manatee (Trichechus manatus), and other important species such as the jaguar (Panthera onca) and the tropical gar (Atractosteus tropicus).

Tamarindo Is part of a National Park

500 ha This coastal area has permanent saline wetlands that are seasonally inundated, with 80% of the area consisting of mangrove forest (mostly red mangrove [Rhizophora mangle]). The wetland provides habitat for large numbers of water birds; reptiles present include the green iguana (Iguana iguana) and two species of crocodiles.

Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland

30,654 ha This wetland is composed of the estuaries of two rivers, lagoons, periodically inundated mangroves, “yolillo” (Raphia taedigera), palm swamp forest, sandy beaches, and cliffs. The wetland supports 55 species of fish, several commercial shellfish species, numerous bird species, mammals, and reptiles.

Palo Verde National Park and other protected wildlife areas

24,519 ha This wetland is an extensive estuarine complex of permanent, shallow, and freshwater lagoons; associated marshes; and seasonally flooded woodlands and mangroves. It is an extremely important area for various species of nesting, staging, and wintering water birds, Nearctic-breeding species, the stork Jabiru mycteria, and in the dry season provides habitat to 20,000 black-bellied whistling ducks (Dendrocygna autumnalis). Other fauna present include the green iguana (Iguana iguana) and two species of crocodiles.

3. In the Costa Rican IIPW, there are a high percentage of threatened plants and animals that only inhabit wetland environments. Although wetlands comprise less than 3% of the Earth’s surface, they may

5 Note that some National Wildlife Refuges include both public and private lands.

contribute up to 40% of the globe’s ecosystem services on an annual basis.6 The numerous benefits provided by wetlands include flood protection, water quality enhancement, carbon storage, and nutrient cycling, both internally and at the upland interface. Wetlands also play a critical role in the land-surface energy balance, provide habitat for many species, and are important for hydrologic connectivity at the watershed scale.7

Socioeconomic context4. Costa Rica has an estimated population of 4.72 million people, which is increasing at a rate of 1.4% per year, and a population density of 92.5 people/km2.8 Whites and mestizos make up 95% of the population, while 3% are Black or Afro-Caribbean, 1% is indigenous, and other groups make up the remaining 1%. The country is considered an upper-middle-income country with a per capita gross national income (GNI) of $8,740. Costa Rica has experienced a steady economic expansion over the past 25 years, and although the levels of poverty (17.7% in 2008) and extreme poverty (3.5% in 2008) have been reduced, there is still an unequal distribution of income (Gini coefficient = 0.515).9, 10

5. Costa Rica’s economy is sustained mainly through traditional exports such as coffee, pineapples, bananas, and beef. However, a variety of industrial and specialized agricultural products have broadened export trade in recent years; these include microchips and other high-value-added goods and services. Tourism is a main source of foreign exchange, as Costa Rica’s rich biodiversity makes it a key destination for ecotourism. In 2012, the income from tourism represented 6.7% of the gross domestic product (GDP) with more than two million tourists visiting the country.11 Costa Rica’s PA system is key for the ecotourism industry. SINAC estimates indicate that more than 1.2 million people visited Costa Rica’s PAs in 2009;12 thus, PAs are central to the country’s economy and the conservation of natural resources plays a fundamental role in the country’s development.

6. The socioeconomic characteristics related to Costa Rica’s IIPW vary widely. For example, in the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW, natural resources extraction and recreation are common. The main income-generating activity for the area is the harvesting of the mollusk Anadara tuberculosa, which is commonly referred to as “piangua.” Limited line-fishing is permitted in the estuary of the Terraba-Sierpe IIPW. The Térraba-Sierpe wetlands generate approximately USD $1,130/day in shellfish extraction. 13 Térraba-Sierpe is also a destination for regional and international tourists. However, the area is characterized by a high level of poverty and unemployment. Local communities, including indigenous groups, depend largely on the use of natural resources for their livelihoods. Two planned infrastructure projects near Térraba- Sierpe are expected to have significant impacts on the area. They are the El Diquís hydropower project (currently in the planning stages), which will be located in the upper basin of Térraba-Sierpe, and an international airport that will be built just 3 miles from the IIPW.

7. In the Caño Negro IIPW, the major economic activities include seasonal subsistence farming, permanent agriculture, cattle ranching, and seasonal non-commercial fishing. In addition, tourism operations provide some employment. Local communities close to the Caño Negro IIPW have a predominantly subsistence economy, which is a counterpoint to the extensive agribusiness economy and agroindustrial and industrial processes in other sectors of the Caño Negro IIPW basin. The area also receives an influx of migrants from Nicaragua. Most of this migrant population settles on the fringes of 6 Zedler, J.B and S. Kercher. 2005. Wetland Resources: Status, Trends, Ecosystem Services, and Restorability. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2005. 30:39–7.7 In: Amy E. Daniels and Graeme S. Cumming. 2008. Conversion or Conservation? Understanding Wetland Changes in Northwest Costa Rica, Ecological Applications. Vol. 18, No. 1 at 49.8 http://data.un.org/CountryProfile.aspx?crName=COSTA%20RICA#Summary.9 http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/costarica/overview.10 Programa Estado de la Nación. 2012. Decimoctavo Informe Estado de la Nación en Desarrollo Humano Sostenible. San José, Programa Estado de la Nación.11 Idem.12 Instituto Costarricense de Turismo. 2011. Boletín Informativo Cifras Turísticas. Available at www.visitecostarica.com.13 Reyes, V. et al. 2004. Valoración socio-económica del Humedal Térraba-Sierpe HNTS. Proyecto de la Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza. Costa Rica: Internacional de Política Económica para el Desarrollo Sostenible de la Universidad Nacional, Heredia, Costa Rica.

the agricultural areas in search of economic opportunities. This migratory flow is significant during the sugar cane, coffee, banana, and citrus harvesting seasons, and many of the migrants permanently settle in the area.

8. The Palo Verde IIPW is part of the Tempisque River basin. The economy of the Tempisque region has long been based on extensive cattle ranching, and many of the formerly forested upland areas have been converted into cattle pasture.14 Traditionally, the wetland areas of the lower basin were used for grazing during the dry season since they remained green much longer into the dry months than upland pastures. The crash of the beef market in the 1980s, the rise of tourism, international lender-forced structural adjustments, and the implementation of a region-wide hydroelectric/irrigation project have contributed to the transformation of land use in the Tempisque River basin from an extensive, cattle-ranching system to a more diverse and more intensive agricultural system.15

9. In the Gandoca-Manzanillo IIPW, fisheries are an important source of revenue for local inhabitants, while the Caribe Noreste IIPW is used largely for agriculture, cattle ranching, tourism, and fishing activities.16 The main land uses in the Tamarindo IIPW consist of traditional and recreational fishing, ranching, agriculture, and commerce.17

Legal and institutional context

10. Cost Rica’s wetlands-related legislation dates back to 1942 with the passing of the Water Law, and more specifically, to 1977 when the Maritime Land Zone Law made reference to the mangroves as a Forest Reserve. However, it is with the Law for the Conservation of Wildlife (LCVS) that the term “wetlands” was used for the first time, and in which the wetlands were listed as a legal asset protected by law. In Article 2 of the LCVS, a wetland was defined exactly the same as the definition found in the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat or Ramsar Convention (1971): “areas of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres”. However, this definition is very broad and difficult to apply to tropical regions. Therefore, during the development of the National Wetland Conservation Strategy a new definition was adopted and incorporated into Article 40 of the Organic Environmental Law (LOA), which states: “wetlands are ecosystems with dependency on natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, lentic or lotic, fresh, brackish or saltwater aquatic regimes, including the marine extensions to the outside limits of phanerogamous marine regimes or coral reefs or, in their absence, to six meters of depth at low tide.”

11. In 1995 the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) of the Costa Rican Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MINAE) was created as an entity for institutional coordination, decentralized and informative, with the goal of dictating policies and planning and executing strategies to achieve sustainability in the management of natural resources. SINAC divides the country into 11 conservation areas. In 1995, the Organic Environmental Law declared wetlands as a management category under the administration of the MINAE; therefore, the wetlands fall under the administration of SINAC-MINAE.

12. In 1994, the National Wetland Commission (NWC) was created (Decree 22839-MIRENEM) as an auxiliary organ of MINAE to establish and recommend the management aspects and policies that permit the conservation of the country’s wetlands, and to facilitate the coordination and technical cooperation of the different institutions that work in this field. However, the NWC is currently not operational; instead, there is an advisory work group that meets once a month to analyze wetland topics but with no authority to make decisions.14 Peters, G. 2001. La cuenca del Tempisque: una perspectiva histórica. Pages 1–21 in Jorge Jiménez and Eugenio González, editors. La Cuenca del Rio Tempisque: perspectivas para un Manejo Integrado. Organización para Estudios Tropicales, San José, Costa Rica.15 Daniels, A. E. 2004. Protected area management in a watershed context: a case study of Palo Verde National Park, Costa Rica. Thesis. University of Gainesville, Gainesville, Florida, USA.16 http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-annolist-anno-costarica/main/ramsar/1-30-168%5E16460_4000_0__17 Idem.

13. The Law for the Creation of the National Institute of Fisheries (INCOPESCA; Law #7384) decreed that INCOPESCA has the power to write, study, and apply legislation, and to regulate and avoid the contamination of maritime resources and aquaculture as a result of fishing efforts, aquaculture, and other activities that cause contamination. There has been an ongoing discussion about whether it is INCOPESCA or SINAC-MINAE that has the authority to issue permits in wetland areas, since in some cases it seems that there is an overlap of functions or lack of clarity in the letter of the law. Regarding this issue, the General Attorney’s Office ruled through Proclamation C-215-95 that for PAs that require total protection of natural resources (Biological Reserves, National Parks, and State Wildlife Refuges), because of the uniqueness of the elements that are regulated, the authority belongs to MINAE; INCOPESCA has authority over the rest of the management categories.

14. Another important entity with authority over the country’s wetlands is the National Commission for the Management of biodiversity, which was created as part of the Biodiversity Law (No. 7788, 1998) as a dependency of the MINAE. This Commission is composed by the Ministers (or a representative) of the MINAE and the Ministry Agriculture and Health, and by the Director of SINAC and a representative of INCOPESCA, the Ministry of International Commerce, the National Smallholder Forum, the National Indigenous Forum, the National Council of University Presidents, the Costa Rican Federation for Environmental Protection, and the Union of Chambers of Commerce. The Commission has the responsibility to formulate national policies regarding access to biodiversity, associated knowledge, conservation, restoration, and its sustainable use based on the different international cooperative agreements. Additionally, it is responsible for formulating a national strategy for biodiversity, and to coordinate and facilitate the development of policies regarding its conservation, sustainable use, and restoration.

15. Given the broad spectrum of institutions that regulate the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, a Wetlands Bill of Costa Rica is being proposed so that SINAC-MINAE will be responsible for the administration and the conservation and sustainable of the wetlands within the continental-inland area and within the PAs, to clarify issues of jurisdiction and authority. This Bill proposal will also provide SINAC-MINAE with the responsibility of coordinating strategies for the management and protection of the wetlands with other institutions.

16. Other legislation regulates the use of wetlands. The LOA declares wetlands and their conservation to be of national interest, since they are used for multiple purposes whether or not they are protected by law. Thus, the government can impose limits on the use of resources within the wetlands in order to protect the national interest and therefore, any activity that could affect the wetlands will require an environmental impact assessment (EIA). The Forestry Law (1996) prohibits the cutting or use of mangroves that are property of the government. Only research, training, and ecotourism will be allowed.

17. Costa Rica is one of the few nations with an existing national Payment for Environmental Services (PES) program that recognizes the value of services provided by ecosystems. Costa Rica’s PES program was established through its Forestry Law 7575 in 1996 and has been reasonably successful; it is among the measures credited with helping the country to dramatically reverse its deforestation trend beginning in the 1990s. The program, however, addresses only forest ecosystem services and was not designed to be applied directly to wetlands. Expanding Costa Rica’s existing PES program to make wetlands eligible for inscription and to include management strategies tailored to wetland ecosystems thus presents a significant opportunity to confront the many threats facing the country’s wetlands.

18. At the international level, Costa Rica is a State Party to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which was ratified in August 1994. Costa Rica has also been a Contracting Party to the Ramsar Convention since April 1991. At the regional level, Costa Rica is part of multiple cooperation agreements including the Central American Forest Agreement (1994), the biodiversity Protection Agreement, the Convention for the Protection of Priority Natural Areas in Central America (1994), the Constitutional Agreement of the Central American Environment and Development Commission (CCAD), and the

Central American Sustainable Development Alliance (ALIDES, 1994). These and other agreements and efforts provide Central America with a basis to comply with Article 5 of the Ramsar Convention and Article 3 of the CBD, which encourages cooperation between countries to avoid environmental damage.

1.2. Threats, impacts, and root causesThreats to wetlands biodiversity19. A wide variety of threats jeopardize the globally important biodiversity contained in Costa Rica’s IIPA wetlands. The principle threats to wetlands biodiversity are: damaging agricultural practices, illegal hunting and fishing, fires, changes in land use for the construction of infrastructure and other development (both large- and small-scale), deforestation of mangrove forests for different uses; unsustainable tourism, introduction of invasive species, and climate change (CC). These threats can negatively impact wetland hydrology and productivity as well as specific species or species groups (e.g., waterfowl and wading bird breeding, staging and wintering areas).

20. Damaging agricultural practices: The cultivation of crops such as banana and pineapple is often associated with the intense use of agrochemicals, which are applied directly to the crops and through aerial fumigation, which subsequently discharge into wetlands. The excess water from irrigation that enters wetland systems is also altering the natural hydrological dynamics of some wetlands. Furthermore, the agricultural and cattle ranching frontiers continue to expand into many areas used for the production of pineapple, rice, cattle, palm, among other products, resulting in the development of altered hydrology through the construction of canals and irrigation systems, drainage of wetlands, and loss of habitat. Fires associated with shifting cultivation practices also negatively affect wetlands.

21. Illegal fishing, hunting, and unsustainable wetlands resources use: In spite of the recent prohibition of fishing and hunting activities instituted through reforms and additions to the Law of Fishing and Hunting in National Park Areas (Law 8436, 2012), commercial and sport fishing activities, both illegal and traditional, are still common in IIPW. In the case of mangrove ecosystems, fishing with gill nets and hand-trawling nets are a common practice, as is aquaculture shrimping activity. Both types of fishing activity cause the capture and death of very important species such as grouper, croakers, snook, shrimps, prawns, and oceanic species that use these ecosystems as nesting and harvesting areas.

22. The unsustainable collection of mollusks for human consumption is particularly problematic in the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW, which provides habitat to the ark clams (Anadara tuberculosa, A. similis, and Grandiarca grandis), mussels (Tagelus peruvianus, Modilus capax, and Polymesoda inflata), and other clams such as Protothaca asperrima, P. grata, and Donax dentifer. Of particular concern is Grandiarca grandis, known locally as “chucheca,” which has been largely overharvested. Illegal hunting is also common in the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW, with species such as the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) and the spectacled caiman (Caiman crocodilus juscus) captured as part of the pet and hide trade.

23. Change in land use for the construction of infrastructure and other developments (both large and small scale): Hydroelectric dams, marinas, roads, airports, urban projects, and tourism infrastructure, among others, can all negatively impact wetland integrity if they are not properly planned, despite the fact that they require EIAs. The presence of communities and associated development in upper and middle watersheds are also resulting in the contamination of water and sedimentation in wetlands. In the Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge, an important wetland in Northern Costa Rica has been experiencing increased habitat loss due to increase in sedimentation and a reduction in river flows.

24. Deforestation of mangrove forests for different uses: It is estimated that 18% of mangroves have been lost in the last 13 years. Mangroves have been increasingly substituted for shrimp farms and other aquaculture activities, as in the case of the Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland. Wetlands are habitats and refuges to a large number of species of migratory birds such as the yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia), the common tern (Sterna hirundo), and the ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres); and endangered species such as the caiman (Caiman crocodilus), howler monkey (Alouatta palliata), yellow-napped parrot

(Amazona auropalliata), orange-fronted parakeet (Arantiga canicularis), orange-chinned parakeet (Brotogeris jugularis), the boa (Boa constrictor), and the mangrove (Rhizophora mangle). In addition, wetlands are areas of growth for many species with importance for fishing in the region such as the white shrimp (Penaues stylirostris), jaiba crab (Callinectes sp.); and fish such as snapper (Lutjanus sp.), jack (Caranx sp.), snook (Centropomus sp.), grunt (Pomadasys sp.), mullet (Mugil sp.), roosterfish (Nematistius pectoralis), cabrilla (Serranus cabrilla), corvina (Cilus sp.), and other species.

25. Unsustainable tourism: Insufficiently managed and monitored tourism practices in wetland areas can be detrimental to wetland biodiversity by affecting nesting sites, feeding practices, and causing pollution of habitat. Costa Rica has become an international tourism destination with more than 2.2 million visitors in 2012. There is growing pressure from the development of beachfront property and large resorts, particularly in coastal areas near wetlands, such as mangroves.

26. Introduction of invasive species: Wetlands are especially vulnerable to invasions, which alters ecosystem habitat structure, reduces biodiversity levels, and modifies food webs, among other impacts. Many wetland invaders form monotypes, which in addition to the impacts mentioned previously, change nutrient cycling and productivity. The propensity for wetlands to become dominated by invasive monotypes is particularly critical, especially by hydrophytes that exhibit efficient growth (high plant volume per unit biomass). Such is the case of Palo Verde National Park, where the presence of cattail (Typha sp.) is now covering large areas of the wetlands within this PA. The devil fish (Hypostomus plecostomus), a species native to tropical South America and belonging to the armored catfish family (Loricariidae), has invaded the Caño Negro Caribe Noreste IIPW, which includes the Caño Negro Wildlife Refuge, the Tortuguero National Park, and the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge. The overabundance of this species can cause local indigenous species to become out-competed and diminish in population. In turn this could lead to a collapse of local fisheries and cause irreversible ecological damage to the wetlands.

27. Climate change (CC): Costa Rica is increasingly affected by extreme climate events that impact the country’s ecosystems and biodiversity.18 An analysis of the effect of CC on the distribution of the 19 Holdridge Life Zones in Costa Rica suggests that those life zones found in high elevations may be more sensitive to increases in temperature, while those at low elevations may be more susceptible to changes in precipitation.19 Although there are few studies that have specifically assessed the impacts of CC on wetlands, the existing evidence suggests that climate events such as hurricanes, which cause flooding, and drought that is related to the El Niño South Oscillation (ENSO), may contribute to changes in their structure and composition. For example, a study conducted by Escobedo (2005)20 to assess the effects of climate on sex ratios of the caiman (Caiman crocodilus) in the Caño Negro Wildlife Reserve found a relationship between a higher number of males (increased number of males born and sex reversal) and a decrease in precipitation during the 1990s caused by the ENSO phenomenon. In the highlands of Costa Rica, the decline in amphibian populations (golden toad and harlequin frog) is attributed to the invasion of the citridiun pathogenic fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis), which is due to an increase in

18 Costa Rica has developed several studies to assess CC scenarios as well as environmental, social, and economic potential impacts from CC. These include: a) Escenarios de cambio climático para Costa Rica. Proyecto “Fomento de las Capacidades para la Etapa II de Adaptación al Cambio Climático en Centro América, México y Cuba”; b) Alvarado, L. F. et al. 2012. Escenarios de Cambio Climático Regionalizados para Costa Rica; c) Costa Rica 2009: Segunda Comunicación Nacional a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático. Primera Edición 2009; d) MINAET, IMN, PNUD y CRRH. 2008. El clima, su variabilidad y cambio climático en Costa Rica. Cambio Climático: Segunda Comunicación Nacional; and e) MINAET y IMN. 2012. Riesgo futuro del sector hídrico de Costa Rica ante el cambio climático. Other CC-related literature includes: a) Vergara, W., et al. 2013. The climate and development challenge for Latin America and the Caribbean: Options for climate-resilient, low-carbon development. Inter-American Development Bank, World Wide Fund for Nature, United Nations. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean; b) MIDEPLAN. 2010. El impacto económicos de los eventos naturales y antrópicos extremos en Costa Rica, 1988-2009; and c) MIANET. 2009. Estrategia Nacional de Cambio Climático- 1 ed.- San José, CR: Editorial Calderón y Alvarado S. A. 109 p.19 Costa Rica 2009: Segunda Comunicación Nacional a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático. Primera Edición 2009.20 Escobedo, G.A. 2005. Efectos del clima en la proporción de sexos del caimán ( Caiman crocodilus, Reptilia, Alligatoridae). Tesis de Licenciatura en Biología con énfasis en Manejo de Recursos Naturales, Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas, Universidad Nacional, Heredia; Instituto Meteorológico Nacional, Costa Rica.

temperature.21 CC may also affect the spawning behavior of many species that use mangroves and other wetlands for reproduction and refuge. The resulting loss of wetland cover would worsen the effects of CC by releasing carbon, thereby reducing the ability of the associated biodiversity to adapt to climate variability (e.g., less protection against storm events and floods).

Direct and underlying causes28. Institutional weakness and lack of coordination among wetland authorities: There is a lack of effective coordination mechanisms between governmental agencies (e.g., SINAC/MINAE and INCOPESCA) and a lack of adequate mechanisms for stakeholder participation to improve IIPW governance. SINAC is divided into wildlife, forestry, and terrestrial PA offices; however, there is no analogous framework for marine-coastal wildlife, fisheries, or marine protected areas some of which are part of IIPW. Marine-coastal conservation is managed through SINAC, while marine wildlife conservation management is shared between SINAC and INCOPESCA, and fisheries management is the responsibility of INCOPESCA only. Currently, each IIPW entity performs their functions in an isolated manner, creating inefficiencies and lost opportunities for developing synergies across IIPW and stakeholder groups. Additionally, most staff working as park rangers in IIPW lack sufficient knowledge about wetland ecosystem management, particularly with regard to marine coastal wetlands such as mangroves and coastal lagoons. Historically, Costa Rica’s has placed emphasis on strengthening inland PAs, giving less attention to coastal areas where some of the country’s most important wetlands are found.

29. In addition, no single IIPW has enough personnel to be effectively managed; for example, currently the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW only employs two permanent staff for the protection and control of 30,654 ha. A small percentage of the staff has the capacity to implement a basic management plan. Most IIPW are underfunded, which limits the ability of IIPW officials to reduce current wetland threats and for effective control and patrolling. Additionally, revenues generated by the IIPW, mostly through visitors and services fees, go to a central government account, from which money is reallocated among all PAs throughout the country. Therefore, IIPW that generate revenue, especially from tourism activities, are unable to provide quality services to the users who pay for those services, as few of the resources are directly reinvested in IIPW management. Finally, there is insufficient promotion of wetlands as tourism attractions, thereby limiting their capacity for generating revenue.

30. Planning gaps and legal limitations: The boundaries of many IIPW are poorly defined (especially down to the 6-m depth), boundary demarcation is unclear (the Palo Verde IIPW is an example), or boundaries are difficult to understand in coastal areas (an example of this is the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW). Precise boundary coordinates need to be established and clear boundaries need to be defined in order to allow easy interpretation by both wetland users and park rangers. Only 40% of the IIPW have a public use plan, and only 30% have an official management plan. Drafting a 5-year management plan sometimes takes so long that by the time it is completed it may already be outdated and the results are no longer useful. Zoning is another important strategy for reducing threats and resolving conflicts over the use of wetlands; however, only 47% of the IIPW have zoning plans. A specific zoning methodology for management plans does not yet exist; thus, current zoning is sometimes inappropriate, particularly for water surfaces and water columns that are usually considered to be homogenous. For example, the marine area in Gandoca-Manzanillo, which covers 4,436 ha, is considered a single zone.

31. Current legal frameworks allow changes to the boundaries of a PA, a process that is used by some stakeholders to reduce marine areas in exchange for terrestrial areas to be used for infrastructure development. This threatens marine ecosystems by establishing barriers to land-sea connectivity. This sort of trade is being discussed in Gandoca-Manzanillo. Economic sectors such as oceanfront real-estate developers can exert considerable pressure to change categories to a lower protection level. Finally, the approval processes for management plans and regulations are still extremely slow.21 Costa Rica 2009: Segunda Comunicación Nacional a la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cambio Climático. Primera Edición 2009.

32. Unregulated agricultural and urban growth near to and within the drainage areas of IIPW is one of the principal direct causes associated with the current threats to wetlands biodiversity. The unregulated expansion of agriculture and urban land uses impacts wetlands through direct ecosystem conversion and drainage. An example of this is the Térraba Sierpe IIPW, which is threatened by the expansion of agriculture and residential areas and where the drainage of wetlands, illegal logging for residential construction, and forest fires have been recently reported. Indirectly, this unregulated growth results in hydrologic alterations and cumulative watershed effects (e.g., contamination and sedimentation), which change surface runoff patterns and alter water quality. The construction of roads implies changes to hydrological periods and connectivity by altering overland water flow and ecosystem fragmentation. Finally, wetlands are undervalued because there is little information available to the public regarding the services and goods they provide.

1.3. Long-term solution33. The long-term solution to mitigate the prevailing threats and to ensure the effective conservation and sustainable management of internationally important wetlands is to have a strong institutional framework and capacity in place, to increase PA management effectiveness (including PA buffer management and stakeholder participation), to have effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, as well as sustainable financing. This will contribute to the maintenance of multiple ecosystem goods and services and the protection of globally significant biodiversity. The specific project actions that will contribute to providing a solution to current threats to biodiversity in the internationally important wetlands of Costa Rica are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 – Proposed solutions to threats to biodiversity.Threats Solutions

Damaging agricultural practices

- Physical boundary demarcation of 11 IIPW boundaries will contribute to limiting the expansion of agriculture and habitat degradation.- Development of protection and control plans will be implemented to reduce the encroachment of agriculture into protected wetlands.

Illegal fishing, hunting, and unsustainable wetlands resources use

- Development of protection and control plans will be implemented to enhance patrolling and surveillance and reduce illegal and unsustainable use of wetlands biodiversity.- Development of local management program for seven (7) IIPW with the participation of local stakeholders will reduce the illegal and unsustainable use of wetlands biodiversity, enhancing their protection and conservation.- A wetland ecological monitoring system will allow tracking the conservation status of key wetland biodiversity species.

Change in land use for the construction of infrastructure and other developments

- Physical boundary demarcation of 11 IIPW boundaries will contribute to limiting the expansion of urban land uses.- Valuation of ecosystem services in seven (7) PAs will provide economic information about the full value of goods and services provided by the project’s wetlands, increasing awareness in the development sector about their importance.

Deforestation of mangrove forests

- Pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility will contribute to the reduction of mangrove deforestation in IIPW.- Development of a local management program for IIPW with the participation of local stakeholders will reduce the deforestation and degradation of mangroves.

Unsustainable tourism - Development of protection and control plans will be implemented to promote sustainable tourism and will be articulated with the Sustainable

Tourism program for PAs, which is currently being implemented with support from the Inter-American Development Bank (IADB).- Program to increase tourism revenues from IIPW will contribute to the regulation of tourism activities in protected wetlands.

Introduction of invasive species

- A protocol will be developed to address the specific threat of invasive exotic species in IIPW. - Protocols will be piloted to reduce the presence of invasive wetland plants such as Typha dominguensis in the Palo Verde IIPW, and to control populations of the devil fish (Hypostomus plecostomus), an armored catfish originally from South America, in the Caño Negro and the Caribe Noreste IIPW, among other invasive species and in compliance with the Ramsar resolution on invasive species (Resolution VII.14) and the Aichi Target 9 of the CBD.- Local awareness and education programs will be established to inform the public about the threat of invasive exotic species and their impact on native biodiversity and local ecosystems.

Climate change - Specific CC adaptation measures for wetlands will be piloted in four (4) IIPW: Palo Verde, Terraba-Sierpe, Caribe Noreste, and Caño Negro.- Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of SINAC IIPW staff includes CC mitigation and adaptation.- Wetland ecological monitoring system will allow tracking the impact of CC on wetlands biodiversity, facilitating decision-making and planning.

1.4. Analysis of barriers34. There is an opportunity for promoting the long-term conservation and sustainable management of wetlands of international importance in Costa Rica and maintaining globally significant biodiversity and vital ecosystem services. This will be achieved through increasing the PA system’s representation and enhancing the institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands, and diversified resources for the sustainable management of internationally important wetlands with PA designation. Nevertheless, the effective conservation and sustainable management of wetlands of international importance in Costa Rica is limited by the following barriers:

35. Limited institutional capacity, structures, and tools to effectively manage internationally important protected wetland areas, and weak inter-institutional coordination among those institutions whose decisions affect wetlands. There is still limited understanding among institutional stakeholders with influence on wetlands, as well as the general public, about the full range of goods and services produced by wetlands; and as a result, alternative uses are often considered more economically profitable, leading to habitat conversion or contamination of wetland areas. In addition, most SINAC personnel (both in the Executive Secretariat and in the Conservation Areas) as well as staff of other institutions involved in wetland issues have received little training in the management and sustainable use of wetlands (the last training session provided to SINAC staff on wetlands was carried out in 2006).

36. Current staffing levels dedicated to working on wetland issues at the Executive Secretariat and in the Conservation Areas are insufficient to carry out the priority activities outlined in the National Wetland Strategy. The National Wetland Program only has one full-time staff member who is the Program Coordinator and Ramsar Convention focal point, while there are no formally designated staff members assigned to the National Wetland Program in the different Conservation Areas. The Marine-Coastal Program is slightly better off, with two staff members, the program coordinator, and designated staff to support the program in the eight Conservation Areas with marine-coastal territory.

37. Procedures, systems, and tools to ensure that SINAC can fully meet its obligations as per national legislation and international conventions on internationally important wetlands are not in place. The majority of the wetland PAs lack updated protection and control plans to guide operations and to provide SINAC’s field personnel with the tools to effectively address the multiple threats to wetlands, such as unsustainable agriculture, CC, and invasive exotic species. The national ecological monitoring system does not include a comprehensive set of indicators related to wetlands to monitor changes over time and thus carry out adaptive management. Furthermore, comprehensive efforts to ensure adequate wetland biogeographic representation have not been undertaken. In addition, inter-institutional coordination mechanisms related to wetland matters are lacking. Finally, local stakeholders do not have the tools or capacity to actively participate in the conservation and sustainable management of these internationally important wetlands.

38. Insufficient funding for the sustainable management of IIPW areas: The Project Preparation Grant (PPG) estimates placed the total annual cash expenditures in PAs (operating and investments costs) for the 2012-2017 period at $73,423,414 USD (or $6,118,618 USD annually). While these are significant baseline investments, these financial resources are not sufficient for the effective management of Costa Rica’s protected wetlands. The funding gap to cover the basic management costs of IIPW in Costa Rica was calculated at $11,093,439 USD annually. Additionally, the Financial Sustainability Scorecard (GEF BD-1 Tracking Tool) indicated that the IIPW in Costa Rica are only 25% effectively financially managed, with limitations in the legal and regulatory frameworks and lack of business planning and tools to generate revenue. The value of the full range of goods and services provided by wetlands is still not well understood, and the wetlands’ eligibility for inclusion in the country’s established PES scheme is still not well defined. Other financial mechanisms tailored to increasing funding for protected wetland areas have not been developed, such that there are no significant and sustainable sources of income for these areas. This financial situation limits the ability of SINAC and other institutions to ensure the protection and sustainable use of these ecosystems.

1.5. Stakeholder analysis39. Table 5 presents a description of the principal stakeholders involved in the project. Many of the actions proposed will largely depend on adequate coordination between these stakeholders and their effective participation in implementation of the project’s actions. SINAC is the national-level agency responsible for the management of the country wetlands and PAs, and will work closely with national- and local-level stakeholders, including the MINAE, FONAFIFO, the ICT, the MAG, the National Coastguard, municipalities, local communities, and research centers and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), to enhance the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of internationally important wetlands. At the regional level, SINAC is also responsible for the management of individual wetlands and PAs and the coordination of conservation initiatives within the Conservation Areas.

Table 5 – Summary of key stakeholders. Stakeholders Role in Project ImplementationSINAC (National System of Conservation Areas)

SINAC is the project’s Executing Agency and is a fully decentralized government institution of MINAE charged with the administration of all public PAs in the country and with the management of forestry and wildlife both within and outside of PAs.

CONAC (National Council for Conservation Areas)

This is the highest-level decision-making body within SINAC, presided over by the Minister of MINAE. CONAC would need to approve any national plans or strategies developed by the proposed project.

Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE)

MINAE is the GEF Focal Point and ruling institution for natural resources in Costa Rica, with the exception of forestry issues, wildlife, and PAs

(responsibility of SINAC).

National Wetlands Committee (NWC)

The NWC provides technical advice and support to the SINAC and other government agencies responsible for wetlands management for the promotion, planning, and sustainable development of wetlands. The NWC will provide technical support for the implementation of project activities, including IIPW management, information management, and raising the awareness of stakeholders about the ecological and socioeconomic importance of the wetlands, among other topics.

FONAFIFO (National Fund for Forest Financing)

FONAFIFO executes the country’s Payment for Environmental Services Program and will be an important stakeholder in support of the development of relevant financial mechanisms.

Municipalities The municipalities will be key stakeholders in the development and implementation of protection and control plans and the local management program. The project will provide specific training to a select group of municipalities to help them incorporate consideration of wetlands into the development and implementation of regulatory plans (to manage land use) and in the granting of permits for infrastructure development, with a focus on municipalities located in the areas immediately surrounding the IIPW areas. Municipalities are only responsible for territorial planning outside of the PAs.

Local communities The project will work closely with communities living within or near Costa Rica’s IIPW and will jointly develop a local management program with them.

UNDP Costa Rica UNDP Costa Rica is the project’s Implementing Agency and will be responsible for financial and technical oversight of the project.

Other government institutions

The project will work to build the capacity of other institutions, such as the Costa Rican Institute for Tourism (ICT); INCOPESCA, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), the National Coastguard; and the Institute of Electricity (ICE).

Universities, research institutions, and NGOs

The project will develop partnerships with other organizations to ensure the long-term collection of relevant wetland data, such as the National University, the University of Costa Rica, research institutions (Research Center for Marine Sciences and Limnology [CIMAR], Tropical Science Center [CCT], Organization for Tropical Studies [OTS]), and national and international NGOs.

1.6. Baseline analysis40. In accordance with the Biodiversity Law, SINAC is responsible for the management of the public PAs of the country, including the 11 IIPW that form the focus of this project. SINAC also has authority over natural resources outside of PAs and therefore carries out activities in the buffer zones and areas of influence of these wetland PAs. Municipalities are only responsible for territorial planning outside of the PAs. SINAC has a National Wetland Program, which deals specifically with inland wetlands, as well as a Marine-Coastal Program, whose responsibilities include coastal wetlands, such as mangroves and coral reefs. The two programs implement joint actions where necessary. Under the baseline scenario, Costa Rica will continue to implement the National Wetland Program, focusing on the priorities defined in the National Wetland Strategy, as well as the Marine-Coastal Program. The main priority actions include protection and control activities, environmental education, research, management, and restoration of wetlands, among others.

41. Over the five years of the project, Costa Rica will invest an estimated $51,109,772 USD ($10,221,454 USD annually) in the operational costs for the management of the 11 IIPW (excluding

donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system). This includes staff time both at the SINAC and in the Conservation Areas, transportation, per diems, and overhead costs (both cash and in-kind costs). Through the project Marine Coastal Biodiversity in Costa Rica: Development of Capacities and Adaptation to Climate Change (BIOMARCC project- 2010-2014), an estimated $147,000 USD will be invested in the development of a strategy for adaptation to CC for marine-coastal areas and in economic valuation studies assessing the ecosystem services of marine-coastal resources. The Forever Costa Rica Program will provide approximately $202,200 USD for initiatives related to the objectives of this project. These include the updating of management plans, including for several internationally important wetlands; an assessment of terrestrial and inland water conservation gaps in order to improve the ecosystem representation in the national PA system; and CC vulnerability studies, including for inland wetlands. Additionally, funding will include $2,991,000 USD as part of a loan from the IADB to Costa Rica for sustainable tourism in protected areas. This program seeks to generate revenue for the SINAC and benefit neighboring communities. Funding for IIPW management will also include $325,000 from debt for nature swaps. Finally, the 11 IIPW will generate revenue from tourism and PES over the five years of the project, $8,949,944 USD and $3,325,722 USD, respectively; however, PPG estimates indicate that only 17% of this revenue ($2,086,863 USD) is retained for reinvestment in IIPW management.

42. An analysis developed during the PPG phase using the Financial Sustainability Scorecard (FSS; BD-1 Tracking Tool) for the 11 IIPW (PA subsystem) to assess the functioning of the financial system indicated a total score of 25%, suggesting deficiencies in all components assessed: a) legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks (31.15%); b) business planning and tools for cost-effective management (18.6%); and c) tools for revenue generation (22.5%).

43. During the PPG phase, the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for Protected Areas was used to determine the management effectiveness baseline for seven (7) IIPW (Table 6). The overall METT score (determined by averaging the IIPW individual scores) indicated medium effectiveness in MPA management (53.5%).

Table 6 – METT scores for seven (7) IIPW.

Name Score (as %)

1 Palo Verde22 47.4%

2 Terraba-Sierpe 63.5%

3 Caño Negro WR 57.5%

4 Maquenque 39.5%

5 Caribe Noreste 53.5%

6 Gandoca Manzanillo NWR 56.5%

7 Tamarindo NWR 56.5%

2. STRATEGY

2.1. Project rationale and policy conformity44. This project will contribute to increasing the long-term conservation and sustainable management of wetlands of international importance in Costa Rica, and thus serve to maintain globally significant

22 Average of scores for individual PAs that comprise the Palo Verde IIPW: Palo Verde NP (57.5%); Lomas de Barbudal Reserve (52.5%); Mata Redonda WR (40.5%); Cipancí WR (46.5%); Corral de Piedra Wetland (48.5%); El Tendal Mix WR (42.5%); and Laguna Madrigal Wetland (43.5%)

biodiversity and vital ecosystem services. The project will achieve the establishment or expansion of at least one new protected PA to address the current conservation gaps; the improved management of seven (7) PAs; and the implementation of several financial mechanisms to ensure sustainable financing, including REDD+ and the adaptation of the existing PES system. The project will make an innovative contribution to the field of conservation financing as these mechanisms have never before been implemented in wetlands in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Project activities will result in the removal of critical institutional capacity barriers to manage these ecosystems and financial barriers that undermine the conservation and sustainable use of these wetland ecosystems.

45. The project is consistent with Objective 1 of the biodiversity Focal Area, Improved Sustainability of Protected Areas Systems, and will support the conservation and strengthened management of PAs in wetland ecosystems that have been recognized as internationally important, with a particular focus on seven (7) sites selected due to the high levels of biodiversity and presence of significant threats. The project will contribute to the achievement of Outcome 1.1, Improved management effectiveness of existing and new protected areas, through extensive capacity-building; development and implementation of an operational framework, including plans, tools, and strategies; increased inter-institutional coordination; and strengthening of the wetland monitoring system. The project will contribute to expanding marine and terrestrial ecosystem representation; one (1) existing IIPW will be expanded based on the country’s conservation gap analysis and updated wetland inventory. The project has also been designed to contribute to Outcome 1.2, Increased revenue for protected areas systems to meet total expenditures required for management, and will increase the level of funding available for the management of eleven (11) IIPW by at least 20% (as measured by the UNDP Financial Sustainability Scorecard) through the valuation of the ecosystem goods and services in these areas, the identification of feasible financial mechanisms to be put in place, and the implementation of such mechanisms in eleven (11) IIPW. This is a key element of the project as there are currently serious funding gaps and limited ability to effectively control the multitude of threats affecting these areas.

46. The project will contribute to the following goals of the CBD Programme of Work on Protected Areas (POWPA): 1.1: To establish and strengthen national and regional systems of protected areas integrated into a global network”; 1.2: To integrate protected areas into broader land- and seascapes and sectors so as to maintain ecological structure and function; 1.4: To substantially improve site-based protected area planning and management; 1.5: To prevent and mitigate the negative impacts of key threats to protected areas; and 2.2: To enhance and secure involvement of indigenous and local communities and relevant stakeholders.

2.2. Country ownership: Country eligibility and country drivenness 47. The proposed project will help Costa Rica to meet its commitments as party to a number of international agreements, including the CBD (ratified in 1994). Costa Rica’s fourth national communication to the CBD (November 2009) highlights the threatened status of its wetlands and the main drivers of wetland loss, in particular habitat change. The project supports the objectives of the National Development Plan 2010-2014, which outlines the importance of increasing the efficiency of biodiversity management, promoting integrated solutions to protect environmental resources, and catalyzing actions to equip SINAC’s Conservation Areas with the human and financial resources they require. This project is also driven by, and will contribute to the achievement of, a wide range of national strategies, plans and policies, including:

The National Wetlands Strategy of 2006, which outlines several initiatives and guidelines that form part of the proposed project, such as the updating of Costa Rica’s wetland inventory in each Conservation Area; the design and implementation of protocols to control invasive exotic species in priority wetlands; the promotion of the active and informed participation of local and indigenous communities in the rational use of wetlands; analysis of the possible application of existing mechanisms for the PES schemes or development of new schemes for wetlands; the promotion of

efficient interinstitutional synergies; and the identification of training needs of institutions and people involved in the conservation and rational use of wetlands.

The Strategic Plan for the National Conservation Area System for 2010-2015, which outlines strategic mandates such as the need for SINAC to take a more proactive role in internationally designated areas; the development of human resources; and the adoption of shared responsibilities or co-participation in management.

The National Strategy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity of 1999, which defines national priorities such as the consolidation of national efforts for in-situ conservation, strengthened national capacity for the sustainable management of biodiversity, and the integration of different stakeholders.

Policies for Protected Areas (2011), which include a number of policies, objectives and strategic guidelines of relevance for this project related to gaining knowledge about the state of PAs and the development of a monitoring system; increasing institutional capacity for the management of PAs; development of tools for the participatory management of PAs; use of instruments to value the ecosystem goods and services provided by PAs; and establishment of a solid financial base for the efficient and effective administration of PAs, among others.

The National Wetland Policy of 2001, which outlines general objectives and strategies, as well as specific activities that are included in the proposed project such as the establishment of a wetland training program, valuation of the environmental services provided by wetlands, design and implementation of a program to provide funding for Ramsar sites, and implementation of participatory management programs.

The Decree issued in 2011 by the Presidency of the Republic highlighting the importance of strengthening the National Wetland Program.

48. The project will also be implemented in compliance with the Ramsar resolution on invasive species (Resolution VII.14), the Ramsar resolution regarding the climate change and wetlands (Resolution XI.14), and the Ramsar Communication, Education, Participation, and Awareness (CEPA) Programme 2009-2015 (Resolution X.8). With regard to national legislation, the project is consistent with the Organic Law of the Environment No. 7554 (1995), The Law of Biodiversity (1998), the Law for Wildlife Conservation (1992), and the Forestry Law (1996).

2.3. Design principles and strategic considerations49. Project Identification Form (PIF) Conformity: The project design is closely aligned with the original PIF. The structure of the project components closely resembles the PIF that was approved by the GEF. The following changes were made; however, they do not represent a departure from the project’s strategy as defined originally in the PIF nor will they have an impact on the funds (GEF and co-financing) originally budgeted.

Component 1 – PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands

PIF Outcomes Project Document Outcomes

At least one new wetland protected area is gazetted to increase the ecological representation of wetlands in the national protected areas system by 1000 hectares (size of area to be confirmed during PPG).

One existing wetland protected areas is expanded to increase the ecological representation of wetlands in the national protected areas system by 12,063 hectares.Currently there is a lack of political will to create new PAs in Costa Rica; instead, the Government of Costa Rica prioritized the expansion of one (1) existing PA, the Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland, which will only

include lands that are part of the natural heritage of the State. Additionally, the size of the area to be included in the protected area was confirmed.

Framework in place to mitigate threats to biodiversity in 7 existing internationally important wetland protected areas, including threats from unsustainable agriculture, hunting and fishing, change in land use for infrastructure development, mangrove deforestation, tourism, invasive species, and climate change, covering a minimum of 210,089 ha, leading to the maintenance of the total area of ecosystems present at project start-up by project end (baseline to be confirmed during the PPG phase)

Framework in place to mitigate threats to biodiversity in eleven (11) existing internationally important wetland protected areas, including threats from unsustainable agriculture, hunting and fishing, change in land use for infrastructure development, mangrove deforestation, tourism, invasive species, and climate change, covering 569,742 ha, leading to the maintenance of the total area of ecosystems present at project start-up by project end.During the PPG, a financial assessment indicated that it with the available GEF funding and co-financing resources, it would be feasible to increase the number of protection and control plans to be drafted for the IIPW to 11 (one each), although these will only be implemented in seven of the sites.

PIF Outputs Project Document Outputs

Scientific analysis, public consultation, boundary demarcation, legal notification and gazettal of at least one (1) new protected area, in line with the country’s conservation gap analysis and updated national wetland inventory

Scientific analysis, public consultation, boundary demarcation, legal notification, and gazettal of the expansion of one (1) existing IIPW, in line with the country’s conservation gap analysis and updated national wetland inventory.Instead of a new PA, the Government of Costa Rica prioritized the expansion of one (1) existing protected area, the Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland, increasing its area from 30,654 ha to 42,717 ha. This change implies that a much larger area of wetlands than the 1,000 ha initially estimated at the PIF stage will be protected.

Eleven internationally important existing wetland protected areas physically demarcated.

Eleven (11) existing IIPW demarcated.Wetland demarcation will emphasize digital demarcation with physical demarcation limited to a few localized sites within each IIPW.

Protection and control plans drafted and implemented in 7 internationally important wetlands.

Protection and control plans drafted in eleven (11) and implemented in seven (7) internationally important wetlands.The number of protection and control plans that will be drafted was increased to 11, thereby increasing the project’s contribution to reducing threats to an equal number of IIPW. However, the plans will only be implemented in seven of the IIPW using GEF resources.

NA Updated National Wetland Inventory.This outcome was added as there is still a need for

updating the National Wetland Inventory. PPG resources were used to review the available information about Costa Rica’s wetlands as an initial step for updating the National Wetland Inventory of 1998. However, this review indicated that there are multiple studies with different estimates (and inconsistencies in the methods used and the data collected) of the extent of these ecosystems, and that to fully update the National Wetland Inventory, a more comprehensive effort is required, which includes fieldwork to develop an accurate characterization and mapping of all the country’s wetlands. Funding of this new project output will use financial resources originally estimated for the physical demarcation of 11 existing IIPW; wetland demarcation will now emphasize digital demarcation, with physical demarcation limited to a few localized sites within each IIPW requiring less funding.

Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of XX staff (number to be defined during PPG phase) within SINAC and other relevant institutions contribute to the conservation and sustainable management of wetland protected areas.

Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of at least 50 staff within SINAC and other relevant institutions contributes to the conservation and sustainable management of wetland protected areas in line with the Ramsar CEPA Programme.During the PPG, the number of staff to benefit from the project through capacity-building was defined as at least 50, in the following manner: SINAC – 33; Municipalities – 12; and other relevant institutions – 5.

Component 2 – Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

PIF Outcomes Project Document Outcomes

Funding for 7 internationally important wetland protected areas increases by 20% (as measured by UNDP/GEF Financial Sustainability Scorecard) (baseline of approximately $3.8 million /year to be confirmed during PPG phase)

Funding for eleven (11) internationally important wetland protected areas increases by 20% (as measured by UNDP/GEF Financial Sustainability Scorecard).The baseline assessment of available finances and costs and financial needs for the IIPW was developed for a subsystem of 11 sites through the GEF-5 Tracking Tool for the Biodiversity Focal Area (BD-1). This allowed determining the financial sustainability of all of Costa Rica’s IIPW protected wetlands and the number of sites was expanded so that project actions regarding the increase and diversification of financial resources will benefit all sites.

PIF Outputs Project Document Outputs

Financial mechanisms are validated on site and serve to increase the level of funding for

Financial mechanisms are validated on site and serve to increase the level of funding for seven internationally

seven internationally important wetlands. Subject to confirmation through the PPG feasibility analysis, the mechanisms to be considered include: Wetland banking (revenues to be

confirmed during PPG phase). Adjustment of existing system of PES to

include ecosystem services provided by wetlands (could generate an estimated $41 to $64/ ha based on existing scheme of payment for hydrological services).

Pilot REDD+ project (carbon sales could generate an estimated $4,092/ha to $12,276/ha) (amounts to be confirmed during the PPG phase).

Increased tourism revenues from wetland protected areas.

important wetlands: Adjustment of existing system of PES incentive for

ecosystem conservation to include ecosystem services provided by wetlands.

Pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility.

Increased tourism revenues from wetland protected areas.

During the PPG phase and assessment of the feasibility of various mechanisms to increase and diversify the level of resources available for IIPW was performed. Eight potential financial mechanisms were assessed: a) REDD+ mechanisms and sale of C credits; b) carbon neutrality management systems; c) social and environmental responsibility programs; d) wetland mitigation banking; e) conservation easements; f) PES incentive for ecosystem conservation; and g) Costa Rica’s Blue Flag Ecological Program. Of these, seven have legal and financial feasibility for implementation in the IIPW; wetland banking is not feasible since these instruments are not allowed by Costa Rica’s laws (i.e., Organic Law of the Environment (Article 45). As a result of this assessment, three mechanisms were selected for implementation by the project from the seven that were considered feasible: a) increase in tourism revenues from wetland protected areas; b) PES incentive for ecosystem conservation; and c) REDD+/ C-Neutrality and Environmental – Social Responsibility.

50. UNDP's Comparative Advantage : UNDP has a long history as the Implementing Agency for GEF projects focusing on the conservation and sustainable management of PAs. Currently the UNDP is overseeing PA projects in over 15 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), spanning an area of approximately 32 million ha. The UNDP has also played a lead role in the development of financial mechanisms to promote the financial sustainability of PAs, such as habitat banking, and to measure this sustainability, such as through the Financial Sustainability Scorecard, and is in a strong position to implement a project with a strong emphasis on strengthened financing for PAs. UNDP Costa Rica has significant experience working with the government on biodiversity conservation, PA management, and sustainable development, and has an office in-country with experienced personnel. The CO is currently implementing two other GEF Full-Sized Projects: Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability of Costa Rica’s Protected Areas System (Project ID- 56040) and Consolidating Costa Rica’s Marine Protected Areas (Project ID- 79129). As such, the organization is in an ideal position to ensure sharing of lessons learned and complementarity of efforts.

51. This project will support the achievement of one of the indicative outputs of the country program specified in the draft of the United Nations Development Action Framework (UNDAF) for 2013-2017, namely the rehabilitation and conservation of wetlands, PAs, and PES. In addition, the draft Country Program document for 2013-2017 indicates that UNDP will focus on providing technical and financial assistance to Costa Rica to strengthen the protection and sustainability of its natural heritage, as well as to strengthen the capacity to promote adaptation to climate change, among other elements.

52. The staff of UNDP Costa Rica who will be involved in project oversight include an Environment and Climate Change Officer, who will manage the environmental portfolio (with a Master’s in Economics, BSc in Economics and Administration, and over six years of experience); a biodiversity and Environment Officer to focus specifically on projects in the biodiversity focal area (with a Master’s in Environment and at least eight years of experience); a Program Assistant with 25 years of experience in the UNDP; and the Auxiliary Resident Representative who would act as senior supervisor (15 years of experience, a degree in Law and a Master’s in Development Studies). In addition, a Regional Technical Adviser for biodiversity, who holds a Ph.D. and M.Sc. in Environmental Policy and Economics, is based in the UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit in Panama City, and will provide technical backstopping when necessary.

53. Coordination with other related initiatives : This project will work in close coordination with a number of other projects, including two ongoing complementary BD-1 UNDP/GEF projects in Costa Rica. The UNDP-GEF project Overcoming Barriers to Sustainability of Costa Rica’s Protected Areas System (2008-2012), hereinafter called Barriers, aims to remove the main systemic and institutional barriers to the sustainability of the PA system of Costa Rica, while the proposed project will focus specifically on the wetland PA subsystem. Nevertheless, the outputs of the Barriers project will be carefully reviewed, particularly in terms of the system-wide capacity building and financial sustainability work, to take advantage of baseline information gathered, tools and mechanisms developed, and lessons learned. For example, the proposed project will incorporate information gathered from the Barriers project on the financial needs of the PAs and will also develop material specific to wetlands for inclusion in the training program currently being designed by SINAC through the Barriers project. In addition, the project will ensure coordination with the UNDP/GEF Project Consolidating Costa Rica’s marine protected areas (MPAs) (2011-2015), which among other elements will increase institutional and individual capacity for MPAs’ management and increase their funding. The proposed project will also ensure coordination with the project Integrated Management of Marine and Coastal Resources of Puntarenas, funded by GEF with support from the IADB and MARVIVA as executing agency. In addition to strengthening the regulatory framework and capacities for the management of two multiple-use marine areas in the Pacific coast of Costa Rica, the IADB project is analyzing and implementing financial mechanisms, such as user fees and PES, to increase the financial sustainability in these areas. These will be reviewed for their potential applicability to the internationally important wetlands included in the proposed project. Specific coordination mechanisms among the various GEF projects will be developed during the PPG phase, but may include periodic meetings among staff of the different projects to ensure information sharing and spaces for discussion of relevant topics, the formation of an inter-project working group, as well as dissemination of the results of each project’s monitoring and evaluation reports.

54. The project will also take advantage of outputs being developed through other related initiatives, including the Coastal Marine Biodiversity and Climate Change Adaptation (BIOMARCC) project, Marine Coastal Biodiversity in Costa Rica: Development of Capacities and Adaptation to Climate Change (2010-2014), which will carry out CC vulnerability studies for the Pacific and Caribbean coasts; these will serve as inputs to the proposed project for the development of the CC adaptation measures for wetlands. A technical cooperation funded by IADB, entitled Adaptation of Costa Rica’s Biodiversity in the face of climate change will result in the development of a national CC adaptation strategy for biodiversity to which the proposed project will contribute a section with specific adaptation measures for wetlands. The Forever Costa Rica program, established to support achievement of the country’s conservation targets, will update PA management plans, including for a number of internationally important wetlands. These management plans will provide the broad framework under which the operational protection and control plans will be developed through the proposed project. Funding to support implementation of the Forever Costa Rica program is being provided in part through a debt-for-nature-swap signed in 2010 with the United States. The project will also coordinate its activities with a technical cooperation funded by the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA), entitled

Promotion of Participatory Management in the Conservation of Biodiversity, which aims to develop an institution-wide program of local management for SINAC; the project will articulate the local management program to be developed for the internationally important wetland PAs with this institutional-level program. Finally, the project will coordinate actions with the Program for Sustainable Tourism in PAs, which seeks the consolidation of ecotourism products and services within and around selected PAs, at the same time strengthening the conservation activities and economic opportunities for neighboring communities. The program has financial support (loan) from the IADB and is currently being implemented. It should be noted that none of the aforementioned projects are focused on improving the management capacity and financial sustainability of the country’s wetland PA subsystem as a whole, and as such this project will contribute to the overall sustainability of GEF investments in Costa Rica.

2.4. Project objective, outcomes, and outputs/activities 55. The project objective is to improve management in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of internationally important wetlands. The project’s outcomes and outputs are described below.

Component 1 – PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands

Outcome 1.1 – One existing wetland protected areas is expanded to increase the ecological representation of wetlands in the national protected areas system by 12,063 hectares.

Output 1.1.1 – Scientific analysis, public consultation, boundary demarcation, legal notification, and gazettal of the expansion of one (1) existing IIPW, in line with the country’s conservation gap analysis and updated national wetland inventory.

56. During the PPG phase a set of criteria was used to prioritize sites for expansion, jointly with PA officials, SINAC staff, and other stakeholders, and using actions plans recommended by Conservation Area officials as a basis. The IIPW selected for expansion is Térraba-Sierpe; the prioritization criteria used in the selection of this IIPW included: a) enhancing connectivity between PAs; b) protecting groundwater recharge areas in each wetland identified; and c) potential for conservation/restoration using local wetland maps. Sites were ranked based on specific criteria derived from mapping and field visits to collect more detailed site information and adjust site ranking.

57. The approval process for the expansion of the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW to be developed by the GEF project includes: a) developing an inventory and characterization of land ownership and mapping; b) carrying out public consultation with stakeholders together with SINAC staff, including municipal representatives, on the proposed expansions; c) performing the steps to obtain approval of the extension of the IIPW by the National Council of Conservation Areas (CONAC), which includes boundary delineation; d) publication in the official gazette of the expansion of the IIPW; and e) carrying out the public disclosure information program to the local communities on the expansion of the IIPW and the physical boundaries. The total area under protection at the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW will increase from 30,654 ha to 42,717 ha by the project’s end. Figure 2 shows the proposed area to be expanded.

Figure 2 – Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland (areas to be included in the PA are shown in red).

Outcome 1.2 Framework in place to mitigate threats to biodiversity in eleven (11) existing internationally important wetland protected areas, including threats from unsustainable agriculture, hunting and fishing, change in land use for infrastructure development, mangrove deforestation, tourism, invasive species, and climate change, covering 569,742 ha 23 , leading to the maintenance of the total area of ecosystems present at project start-up by project end.

Output 1.2.1 – Eleven (11) existing IIPW demarcated.

58. The project will allow the digital demarcation of boundaries of 11 existing IIPW. Additionally, physical demarcation of the boundaries will be conducted in selected key priority sites for conservation purposes. Boundary demarcation for the IIPW that will be expanded (Output 1.2.1) will be completed after the expansions are officially approved. Boundaries will be demarcated digitally with geographic coordinates defined by SINAC. Boundary demarcation will enable clarification of land ownership within the IIPW, access to the wetlands, and will clearly define areas that are strictly protected due to their ecological significance. Additionally, it will also serve to increase awareness about the importance of preserving the wetlands and biodiversity and will prevent encroachment and degradation of protected wetlands.

Output 1.2.2 – Protection and control plans drafted in eleven (11) and implemented in seven (7) internationally important wetlands

23 Based on PPG Natural Sciences Consultancy: Bravo, J. et. al. 2013. Final Report.

59. Protection and control plans will be developed for 11 IIPW and implemented in seven of these sites, in line with the management plan for each area. The protection and control plans will serve as critical tools to provide operational guidance to IIPW staff in the field. These plans will include an assessment of the threats to the PA; objectives of the plan; target groups (e.g. local communities, private sectors, tourism); activities to be undertaken such as patrolling, IIPW boundary enforcement, remote sensing (analysis of satellite images and aerial photographs), preventive activities, evaluation of the implementation of the plan; timeline of activities; and budget assessment and resource allocation. Special attention will be given to the development of informational campaigns so that the different stakeholders are aware of the permitted activities and restrictions in each of the IIPW. The project will assess the existing protection and control plans to identify gaps and needs and will update them where necessary, and will develop plans for the IIPW that lack this management tool.

60. Protection and control plans will be developed considering the management category of specific PAs within each IIPW, and will be valid for at least three years; they will be articulated with the PAs’ annual work plans. Protection and control plans will be developed through at least five coordination meetings and will be approved by CONAC. Additionally, every year at least one meeting will be held for each IIPW to present, discuss, and update the protection and control plans as required.

61. A protocol will also be developed to address the specific threat of invasive exotic species; this protocol will be implemented in three (3) IIPW. The protocol will be developed in line with the IUCN and the Ramsar guidelines for the control of invasive species and will consist of: a) methods to collect and generate baseline information on wetlands invasive exotic species; b) methods to assess the distribution, abundance, and interactions of introduced species that are already established in all IIPW; c) conduct risk assessments using basic population assessment parameters, dispersal capability, and habitat requirements of other potential invasive species and develop early warning systems; and d) train PA staff and other national and local stakeholders in monitoring techniques, species identification, data analysis, and population control techniques. Training will include a specific module directed towards PA officials, judges, prosecutors, police, and other authorities regarding national legislation for the control of introduced species; d) establish local awareness and education programs to inform the public about the threat of invasive exotic species, their impacts on native biodiversity and local ecosystems, and to make them aware about measures to control and prevent the introduction of invasive exotic species; and e) monitoring and evaluation.

62. The protocol will be piloted in the Palo Verde IIPW to reduce the coverage of the invasive wetland plants including Typha dominguensis and other species of concern, and in the Caño Negro IIPW and the Caribe Noreste (Tortuguero National Park and Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge) IIPW to control the devil fish (Hypostomus plecostomus), an armored catfish from the Loricariidae family originally from South America. The Palo Verde IIPW was selected as a pilot site because of its experience in the control of Typha dominguensis. In Caño Negro and Caribe Noreste IIPW, controlling the devil fish will help to carry out actions to mitigate the negative impacts of this invasive exotic species on native species, as well as to pilot ecological restoration of affected wetland ecosystems. The results and lessons learned from these pilot experiences will be replicated in other IIPW with similar problems.

Output 1.2.3 – Specific climate change adaptation measures for wetlands piloted in four priority sites and integrated in the national Biodiversity Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

63. The project will allow the implementation of CC adaptation measures for wetland biodiversity in four (4) IIPW: Palo Verde, Terraba Sierpe, Caribe Noreste, and Caño Negro. CC adaptation measures will be integrated with the National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy for Biodiversity, which will be completed in 2014 with IADB funding. Adaptation measures will include the following: protection of additional areas to complement or replace affected areas; protection of eroding edges from further erosion; introduction of integrated fire management practices in order to reduce risks of destructive fires and increased investment in fire control measures; intensification of controls on pollution in areas most

vulnerable to CC impacts; and modification of ecosystem management regimes to control increased sedimentation. The adaptation measures to be implemented in each of the four prioritized IIPW is summarized below:

IIPW Protection of additional areas

Protection of eroding edges

Fire management practices

Pollution control

Control of increased

sedimentationPalo Verde X X X X XTérraba-Sierpe X X X XCaribe Noreste X X Caño Negro X X X X

Output 1.2.4 – Wetland ecological monitoring system established for eleven (11) IIPW and articulated with the National Ecological Monitoring Program (PROMEC)

64. The project will develop a wetland ecological monitoring system for eleven (11) IIPW in order to monitor wetland biodiversity and integrity over time, and to determine to what extent protection and control activities are mitigating threats. To this end, during the PPG phase an assessment was performed to identify key indicators considering existing information in Costa Rica with regard to biodiversity indicator development, and following the guidelines defined under PROMEC and past experiences in PA monitoring in the country. Based on this, and in conjunction with national biodiversity experts and SINAC staff, five wetlands indicators that will be articulated with the PROMEC were defined: a) changes in physicochemical parameters; b) changes in abundance and diversity indices of bird species: d) changes in wetland area; e) presence and distribution of invasive species; and f) changes in precipitation and water flow. These indicators were selected based on their significance to assess wetland biodiversity and ecosystem health and the ease and cost of data collection. Additionally, indicators should be able to provide information regarding threats to wetlands and biodiversity, including the threat of invasive species.

65. During project implementation, protocols for the collection of data related to each indicator will be developed and implemented in three (3) IIPW: Palo Verde, Caño Negro, and Caribe Noreste. These tests will assess the effectiveness of the indicators and enable adjustments of both the indicators and the protocols. All data and test results will be available to the eleven (11) IIPW, and PA officials from all sites will be trained as part of an Ecological Monitoring Training Program in the application of the protocols, data collection, data processing and analysis, and reporting of results. Once approved by SINAC, the protocols will be made available to the 11 IIPW. At least two cycles of data collection and analysis will be completed during the life of the project.

66. Partnership agreements with other organizations, including international agencies (e.g., IUCN), universities (e.g., CIMAR/University of Costa Rica and National University), research centers, and NGOs will be established and will facilitate the regular collection of data over the long term, given inherent governmental human resource and financial constraints to undertake this work. The project will support the incorporation of this wetland data into SINAC’s information management system, which has been only partially operational since 2012.

Output 1.2.5 – Updated National Wetland Inventory

67. PPG resources were used to review the available information regarding Costa Rica’s wetlands. The results indicated that there are multiple studies with different estimates (and inconsistencies in the methods used and the data collected) of the extent of these ecosystems; to fully update a national wetlands inventory a more comprehensive effort is required, which will include fieldwork for an accurate characterization and mapping of all the country’s wetlands. Based on the Information Sheets on Ramsar

Wetlands and information from Costa Rica’s existing wetlands inventory (Córdoba et al., 1998) 24, four information sheets were developed during the PPG phase to gather baseline information for the development of digital model and maps. The information sheets included: a) general wetland information; b) wetland type and classification; c) wetland uses and ecosystem services; and d) threats to the wetlands and level of degradation. The information sheets were used to describe the Palo Verde IIPW and the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW, and enabled the development of a preliminary inventory of wetlands in these sites.

68. Using as a basis the above information and other PPG wetland assessment results, the project will develop the following activities: a) perform a detailed review of the available information regarding Costa Rica’s wetlands; b) assess and adopt a wetland classification system (e.g., Cowardin et al., 197925; Bravo and Windexvohel, 199726); c) identify and classify wetlands from aerial imagery; d) gather field data and develop maps; d) record the inventory findings and develop final geospatial data (digital maps); d) make the wetlands inventory available through a web-based platform (e.g., SINAC’s web site) for decision-makers and stakeholders to view and/or download data; and d) establish and provide training for staff responsible in 11 Conservation Areas to support the management and use of a national wetland inventory. The new National Wetland Inventory will be completed by the end of the second year of project implementation.

Outcome 1.3 – The management effectiveness of seven (7) internationally important wetland protected areas increases by 20%.

Output 1.3.1 – Local management program promotes awareness and participation of stakeholders and increases understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological benefits and importance of wetlands in seven (7) protected areas.

69. The GEF investment will allow the development of local management program for participatory management, and will include the promotion of sustainable production activities within the IIPW. This program will require an analysis of the appropriate structures for inter-institutional work at the local level and support for existing local organizational structures. The program will include the establishment of local interinstitutional committees as a participatory mechanism for IIPW management. Additionally, the project will promote and strengthen the voluntary brigades for the protection and control of PAs, which are currently operating at a limited level in the Conservation Area wetlands. As a tool to implement this program, the project will raise the awareness of stakeholders about the ecological and socioeconomic importance of the wetlands, the full range of goods and services they provide, and their economic value. The awareness-raising activities will be tailored to various target audiences, including decision-makers, PA managers, relevant institutions, and communities living in or near IIPW areas.

70. More specifically the project will allow the development of annual participatory management plans for the IIPW that include local actions to integrate and coordinate conservation, sustainable use of wetlands resources, research, environmental education, and awareness of the wetlands biodiversity and the goods and services provided by these ecosystems; specifically in those IIPW where more than one Conservation Area has jurisdiction (e.g., Turberas de Talamanca, Palo Verde, and Caribe Noreste).

Output 1.3.2 – Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of at least 50 staff within SINAC and other relevant institutions contributes to the conservation and sustainable management of wetland protected areas in line with the Ramsar Communication, Education, Participation, and Awareness (CEPA) Programme.

71. The project will build the capacity of key stakeholders in the conservation and sustainable management of IIPW. The project will work to increase SINAC officials’ ability to manage the PAs

24 Córdoba-Muñoz, Rocío; Romero-Araya, J.C; Windevoxhel-Lora, N.J. 1998. Inventario de los humedales de Costa Rica. UICN / MINAE / SINAC / Embajada Real de los Países Bajos, San José, CR.25 Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31.26 Bravo, J. y Windevoxhel, N. 1997. Manual para la Identificación y Clasificación de Humedales en Costa Rica. UICN.

themselves as well as to enforce regulations in the buffer zones of the IIPW (given that many of the threats to wetlands stem from outside of the PAs). The project will support building the capacity of SINAC staff, both at the Executive Secretariat and in the 11 Conservation Areas (CAs), with a minimum of two staff members per CA to be trained. The project will also facilitate exchange visits between staff of different CAs to promote learning and sharing of best practices. The project will develop complementary course material specific to wetlands for inclusion in the training program that is currently being designed by SINAC in partnership with National University of Costa Rica and in coordination with the National Wetlands Program. This is critical in order to ensure the sustainability of capacity building efforts, given the relatively high levels of staff rotation and turnover within SINAC. The training program will include information on the programs of the CBD and the Ramsar Convention, as they pertain to wetlands, information on national wetland environmental policy and legislation, and wetland management and conservation, among other topics. To complement the capacity-building work, organizational procedures, staff functions, and responsibilities in relation to wetland management will be reviewed to strengthen SINAC’s system of addressing wetland matters and implementing the National Wetland Program and wetland component of the Marine Coastal Program. The existing National Wetland Strategy will be updated and officially endorsed to promote inter-institutional coordination (this need was identified at the time of the PIF and was confirmed during the PPG) according to Ramsar Strategic Plan. In addition, mechanisms to facilitate inter-institutional communication and coordination to improve decision-making will be designed.

72. To complement the institutional strengthening and training of SINAC, awareness raising and capacity building will be carried out with a number of other institutions that have significant impact on wetlands in Costa Rica (e.g., ICE, MINAE, universities, INCOPESCA, and NGOs), and that deal with sectors such as agriculture, tourism and infrastructure development. These are likely to include the Ministry of Agriculture and Cattle Ranching, Costa Rican Institute of Tourism, Ministry of Health, Costa Rican Institute of Electricity, National Coastguard Service, and municipalities, among others. The project will provide training to staff in 12 municipalities (Carrillo, Osa, Buenos Aires, Coto Brus, Guatuso, Los Chiles, San Carlos, Sarapiquí, Pococí, Talamanca, Santa Cruz , and Bagaces) on the importance of wetlands in land use planning so that this issue is taken into consideration during the development and implementation of local regulatory plans to reduce threat to wetlands in buffer zones, during the granting of permits for infrastructure development, and the development of agricultural activities (e.g., rice, pineapple, and oil palm production). The project will concentrate on those municipalities with a substantial impact on IIPW and the level of threats present (Osa, Santa Cruz, and Guatuso).

73. By project end, at least 50 staff within SINAC, the municipalities, and other relevant institutions (e.g., INCOPESCA, MAG, and ICT) will be trained on specific topics regarding the conservation and sustainable management of IIPW.

Component 2 – Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

Outcome 2.1 – Funding for eleven (11) internationally important wetland protected areas increases by 20% (as measured by UNDP/GEF Financial Sustainability Scorecard)

Output 2.1.1 – Valuation of ecosystem services in seven (7) PAs gathers economic information on full value of goods and services provided by the wetland sites.

74. Given that some wetlands are being impacted by human settlements within their boundaries or in the surrounding areas, the project will identify financial mechanisms that provide meaningful incentives for the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands in order to reduce this threat. The project will support the valuation of the full range of ecosystem goods and services provided by the IIPW (e.g., water storage, groundwater replenishment, carbon sequestration, flood control, shoreline stabilization and storm protection, sediment and nutrient retention and export, habitat for biodiversity, food supply, timber and firewood, and recreation and tourism) focusing on the seven (7) IIPW prioritized for this project. The

specific activities to be developed are: a) identification of ecosystem goods and services provided by each of the seven (7) IIPW; b) prioritizing the ecosystem goods and services for each site, including the mapping (GIS) of these goods and services based on secondary data review, field verification, and consultations with relevant stakeholders to determine their availability and socioeconomic relevance; c) identification of existing methodologies for the economic valuation of at least three (3) of the most representative goods and services offered by each IIPW; d) validation of the selected methodologies with the project team, SINAC, and local stakeholders; e) valuation of ecosystem goods and services using the selected methodologies and field data; f) analysis of results; and g) validation of results through workshops with the participation of key national and local stakeholders.

75. The valuation of the ecosystem goods and services within each IIPW will be completed during the first year of the project. The information will then be made available to support the implementation of specific financial mechanisms to provide incentives for the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands so as to reduce the threats and contribute to the financial sustainability of the IIPW.

Output 2.1.2 – Financial mechanisms are validated on site and serve to increase the level of funding for seven internationally important wetlands: a) Adjustment of existing system of payment for ecosystem services (PES) incentive for ecosystem conservation to include ecosystem services provided by wetlands; b) Pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility; and c) Increased tourism revenues from wetland protected areas.

76. The project will then put into place three financial mechanisms to increase the level of financial resources available by 11.2% for the management of the IIPW from a baseline of approximately $6.1 million USD per year invested in the eleven (11) IIPW. During the PPG phase, eight potential financial mechanisms were identified: a) REDD+ mechanisms and sale of C credits; b) carbon neutrality management systems; c) social and environmental responsibility programs; d) wetland mitigation banking; e) conservation easements; f) PES; and g) Costa Rica’s Blue Flag Ecological Program. Of these, seven have legal and financial feasibility for implementation in the IIPW; wetland banking is not feasible since these instruments are considered illegal in Costa Rica as the Organic Law of the Environment (Article 45) protects all wetlands and prohibits "... the activities aimed at disrupting the natural cycles of wetland ecosystems ...". Additionally, Article 46 of the Organic Law of the Environment declares the sovereignty of the State over the biodiversity; thus, in case that an impact on a wetland is caused (or may be caused) by a development activity, a compensation mechanism will apply for environmental damages and should be submitted to the Environmental Administrative Court. Additionally, the increase of tourism revenues through increase in visitation to IIPW was also considered.

77. Three mechanisms were selected for implementation from the seven that were considered feasible: a) increase of tourism revenues through increased visits; b) PES incentive for ecosystem conservation; and c) REDD+/ C-Neutrality and Environmental – Social Responsibility. The increase in tourism revenues through the increase number of visits also includes the implementation of mechanisms for charging fees in the PAs of IIPW that do not currently collect them. This may include collecting visitors’ fees onsite, the use of an electronic toll collection system currently under implementation by SINAC, user multiple entry tickets, and marketing and promotional campaigns to raise public awareness about Costa Rica’s IIPW and increasing the supply of ecotourism services. Currently, about 140,000 tourists visit the PAs within the IIPW annually, generating revenues totaling $1,315,798 USD. Through the project, an increase in 20% in five years will increase revenues derived from increase in visits up to $1,679,329 USD.

78. The PES incentive for ecosystem conservation will include the development of a payment mechanism, such as a fund, to be administered by SINAC, and which will be used to make payments to third parties within IIPW (e.g., landowners or landholders) interested in promoting wetland and BD conservation. It will draw upon the experience of the FONAFIFOS’s forest-based environmental services payment program, in which private landowners subscribe their land to an environmental management

plan such as reforestation through plantations, protection of existing forest, natural forest regeneration, or agroforestry and receive payments in exchange for the bundle of environmental services provided (e.g., mitigation of greenhouse gases; protection of water for urban, rural and hydroelectric power generation; protection of biodiversity; and scenic beauty). Unlike FONAFIFO, the PES incentive for ecosystem conservation to be established by the project will also allow payments for the conservation of non-forested wetlands (e.g., freshwater and tidal marshes, shallow lagoons, non-forested peatlands, etc.). Funding for the PES incentive for ecosystem conservation program may come from the sale of carbon offsets, international donors, or government funding. Based on the performance of FONAFIFO, PPG estimates indicate that payments through the PES incentive for ecosystem conservation could total $726,187 USD over a five-year period.

79. Finally, the REDD+/C-Neutrality and Environmental- Social Responsibility pilot project consists of three combined mechanisms that will allow the sale of carbon credits in the national and/or international voluntary market. The project will support SINAC for the development of internal procedures for channeling the resources generated by this mechanism in support of IIPW management. To assess the potential of this financial mechanism for increasing the level of funding for the IIPW, an analysis was performed during the PPG for the Palo Verde IIPW using land use change information developed by Cascante (2013)27 for the 2005-2010 year period; during this period there was a 20% change from forest cover to non-forest cover and a 3% change from forest cover to agriculture (see Table 7 and Figure 3). Based on this information, the total deforestation rate for this period was estimated at 16% (or 3.2% annually).

Table 7 – Land use change in the Palo Verde IIPW.Land cover 2005 Land cover 2010 Area (ha) Percentage

Forested land*

Agriculture 517.45 3.0%

Non-forest 2,296.50 13.1%

No change 7,265.17 41.4%

Non-forested land

Forest 2,267.57 12.9%

Agriculture 798.01 4.6%

No change 4,393.83 25.1%

Total area 17,538.52 100.0%*Forested lands include: secondary forests, mangroves, “tacotales,” and reforested areas.

27 Referenced in Reyes, V, and Sánchez, R. 2013. Consultancy on Environmental Economics. PPG Phase. GEF Project: Conservation, Sustainable Use of Biodiversity and Maintenance of Ecosystem Services of Internationally Important Wetlands.

Figure 3 – Land use change in the in the Palo Verde IIPW (2005-2010).

80. If a REDD+/C-Neutrality and Environmental-Social Responsibility pilot project were to be implemented in the Palo Verde IIPW, it could contribute to reducing deforestation and GHG emissions in a 29,084-ha wetland landscape. Over a period of five years, up to 1,203,874 carbon credits (or verified carbon units [VCU]) could be sold generating up to $3,611,622 USD. The REDD+ methodologies to be used will be chosen among approved methodologies such as the Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) VM0007 or the VM0015. The VM0007 methodology (REDD Methodology Modules [REDD-MF], v1.4) provides a set of modules for various components of a methodology for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. The modules, when used together, quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions and removals from avoiding unplanned and planned deforestation and forest degradation. This methodology is applicable to forest lands that would be deforested or degraded in the absence of the project activity. The methodology includes a module for activities to reduce emissions from forest degradation caused by extraction of wood for fuel. 28 The VM0015 methodology (Methodology for Avoided Unplanned Deforestation, v1.1) estimates GHG emissions from areas where unplanned deforestation is taking place and quantifies the emission reductions achieved by curbing deforestation. The methodology provides a comprehensive set of tools for analyzing both frontier and mosaic deforestation patterns to establish the baseline deforestation rate, monitor GHG emission reductions, and assess leakage.29 As an example, estimations of VCUs considering the VM0015

28 http://www.v-c-s.org/methodologies/VM0007.29 http://www.v-c-s.org/methodologies/VM0015.

methodology scenario and aboveground and belowground carbon estimates for the Terraba-Sierpe National Wetland (400 MgC/ha)30 are presented in Annex 8.6.

2.5. Key indicators, risks, and assumptions81. Project’s indicators are provided in Table 8. Detailed information on project indicators is included in the Section 3: Results Framework of this Project Document. The risks that might prevent the project from being achieved are presented in Table 9.

Table 8 - Project indicators.

Objective / Outcome Indicators Goal (5 years)Objective: To improve management in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of internationally important wetlands.

Total area (in hectares [ha]) of internationally important protected wetlands (IIPW) within the SINAC

581,805 ha

Change in the management effectiveness of seven (7) internationally important wetland PAs as measured through the METT scorecard

Palo Verde: from 47.4% to 67.4% Terraba Sierpe: from 63.5% to 83.5% Caño Negro WR: from 57.5% to 77.5% Maquenque: from 39.5% to 59.5% Caribe Noreste: from 53.5% to 73.5% Gandoca Manzanillo NWR: from 56.5% to 76.5% Tamarindo NWR: from 56.5% to 76.5%

Change in the financial capacity of the eleven (11) internationally important wetland PAs according to that established through the total average score in the UNDP/GEF Sustainability Scorecard

Legal, regulatory, and institutional framework: from 31.15 to 51.1% Business planning and tools for cost-effective management: from 18.6% to 38.6% Tools for generating income and its allocation: from 22.5% to 42.5% Total: from 25.0% to 45.0%

Outcome 1: PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands.

Change in ecological representativeness (ha) within eleven (11) IIPW

Open water: from 1,299 ha to 2,069.91 ha Shallow waters: 2,579 ha (no change) Swamp forest: 31,989 ha (no change) Palm forest: from 61,582 ha to 64,453.5 ha Mixed wetlands: 809 ha (no change) Lagoons: from 141ha to 146.63 ha Mangroves: from 17,345 ha to 20,349.93 ha Herbaceous swamp: 19,535 ha (no change) Other wetlands: 3,844.57 ha Non-wetland ecosystems (forested areas and islands): 1,565.46 ha

Total area (ha) of IIPW area demarcated and legalized for conservation purposes, and recognized by stakeholders by year 3

12,063 ha (Térraba-Sierpe IIPW)

Change in the coverage of the invasive species Typha dominguensis in the Palo Verde IIPW

10% decrease by project end

Change in the spawning rate of the devil fish (Hypostomus plecostomus), an invasive species in two IIPW (Caño Negro and

25% decrease by the project end

30 BIOMARCC-SINAC-GIZ.2012. Evaluación de carbón en el Humedal Nacional Térraba-Sierpe. San José-Costa Rica. 33 págs.

Objective / Outcome Indicators Goal (5 years)Caribe Noreste)Number of staff (including women) from SINAC and other national and local agencies trained for the protection and management of IIPW

SINAC: 33 Municipalities: 12 Other: 5

Outcome 2: Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

Change in the financial gap (USD) to cover basic management costs of eleven (11) IIPW as a result of new financial mechanisms

Change from $63,671,335 USD to $58,878,676 USD (2012-2017; reduction of 11.2% or $1,185,526 USD annually)

Annual income (USD) for IIPW by type of financial mechanisms implemented

PES incentive for ecosystem conservation: change from $626,415 USD to $726,187 USD REDD+/C-Neutrality: change from $0 USD to $722,324 USD Tourism: change from $1,315,798 to USD $1,679,328 USD

Table 9 - Risks facing the project and the risk mitigation strategy.Risk Rating* Risk Mitigation StrategyNew administration to be elected in 2014 no longer prioritizes wetland conservation and sustainable use; staff capacity built through the project is lost with the associated staff turnover.

L The project team will fully socialize the project with the newly elected administration to ensure that the officials understand the socioeconomic and environmental benefits of the project and their role in project execution. In addition, to ensure the sustainability of the capacity building, the project will go beyond training government staff in wetland conservation and sustainable use to include the development of institutional procedures, inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, and specific wetland course material for inclusion in the SINAC training program.

Insufficient commitment of key institutions with influence over wetlands to incorporate environmental sustainability criteria and ensure the protection and sustainable use of wetlands.

M The project includes a significant emphasis on increasing the level of awareness and understanding among key stakeholders about the value of wetlands and the importance of their sustainable use and conservation. Substantial capacity building will be carried out with SINAC and other institutions with influence on wetlands (such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Costa Rican Institute of Tourism), and a local management program will be developed and implemented. Finally, financial incentives will be established to promote the adoption of environmentally-friendly activities by local stakeholders.

Lack of funding for a PES incentive for ecosystem conservation reduces the expected level of available funding for IIPW management.

M/H To reduce this risk, the project will work in close collaboration from the beginning with SINAC staff, making use of Costa Rica’s extensive experiences that have successfully enabled funding initiatives such as the Forever Costa Rica Fund and the FONAFIFO, through both public and private sources, including international donors.

Climate change (CC) negatively impacts wetland biodiversity.

L The project includes as one of its outputs the identification and incorporation of CC adaptation measures for wetlands. Furthermore, by strengthening the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, they will be less vulnerable to the impacts of CC. In fact, wetlands can play an important role in the country’s adaptation to CC by acting as a barrier for storms and floods and can help mitigate CC by acting as a carbon sink. Finally, the project will support the establishment of a system to regularly collect biodiversity data from wetlands, which will enable decision-makers to identify changes over time (which could be related to CC) and implement adaptive management practices.

* Low = L; Medium = M; High = H.

2.6. Financial modality82. The project will fund a set of activities that will result in increased PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands, and diversified resources for the sustainable management of internationally important wetlands with PA designation. The financial support provided by GEF resources will consist of a grant to cover the incremental costs of these activities. Therefore, GEF resources will be mainly directed toward technical assistance.

83. The project will be executed under National Implementation (NIM-modality), according to the standards and regulations for UNDP cooperation in Costa Rica. The costs of the incremental activities that are required to contribute to global benefits that will be financed by GEF are $3,705,873. A summary of the project’s budget is presented in Table 10.

Table 10 – Total project budget.

Outcome Budget Percentage of total budget

Outcome 1. PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands

2,505,876 67.62

Outcome 2. Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

1,023,527 27.62

Project management costs 176,470 4.76TOTAL 3,705,873 100.00

2.7. Cost-effectiveness84. In line with the GEF Council’s guidance on assessing the cost-effectiveness of projects (Cost Effectiveness Analysis in GEF Projects, GEF/C.25/11, April 29, 2005), a qualitative approach to identifying the alternative with the best value and feasibility for achieving the project objective was used.

85. A strategy to improve management in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of IIPW is likely to be far more cost-effective in the long term than the alternative approach that relies on a limited institutional and individual capacity for effective IIPW management and for reducing current threats to wetlands’ biodiversity. If this project is not implemented, the scenario that will prevail is one where there will still be a very limited understanding among institutional stakeholders and the general public about the importance of wetlands for delivering goods and services and for serving as habitat for biodiversity of global importance, and as result Costa Rica’s IIPW will continue to be threatened. Additionally, the financial sustainability of Costa Rica’s IIPW will continue to lag behind in their conservation and management needs and they will continue to rely mostly on limited government funding. By strengthening the institutional capacity of SINAC, other authorities with influence on wetland conservation, and municipal authorities, and through capacity building for IIPW management, adaptation to CC, the control of wetland invasive species, and wetland ecological monitoring, as well as by providing them with tools for the reduction of threats and financial mechanisms for financial sustainability, the GEF alternative will allow the removal of the barriers that limit effective wetlands management and the conservation of globally significant biodiversity.

86. The return on investment with regard to improved management and financial sustainability will include direct benefits for eleven (11) IIPW covering 581,805 ha; 12,063 ha of which will be newly protected as a result of the project. Without the project it is unlikely that additional wetland areas will be

protected in the near future. Additionally, by improving IIPW boundary demarcation, developing and implementing protection and control plans, and developing local programs to promote stakeholder participation in IIPW, the GEF alternative will reduce potential conflicts with wetlands users, which may prove to be costly in terms of the effort that will be required to overcome them, thereby undermining management effectiveness. The use of multiple tools and strategies to improve IIPW management will provide lessons learned and best practices for future management approaches, which may lead to cost savings throughout the national PA system. The development of a wetland ecological monitoring system will be cost-efficient since it will be articulated with the PROMEC and will make use of already established protocols for data-gathering, database development, data processing, and reporting. This constitutes a lower investment than if the wetland ecology monitoring strategy were to be developed outside of the PROMEC–CR environment. Finally, by developing CC adaptation strategies for three IIPWA, the GEF alternative will promote adaptive management to the effects from climatic variations. Although the threat of CC to IIPW is recognized by PA decision-makers and managers, no other option is being discussed.

87. The project’s approach to the financial sustainability of IIPW will include the development of financial mechanisms to be delivered through Component 2, which will serve to: a) reduce the financial gap by 11.2% to cover basic protected wetlands management costs; b) improve mechanisms for collecting entry fees at the PAs within IIPW with improved revenue retention mechanisms for reinvestment; and c) perform economic valuation of wetlands ecosystem services for the implementation of PES schemes. Currently, SINAC is not taking advantage of these financial mechanisms to support IIPW management, or they are inefficiently implemented such as in the case of PA entry fees. Without the project, it is very likely that will this will continue to be the case. The implementation of these mechanisms for the financial sustainability of the IIPW will provide cost savings in the sense that the project will build on the existing experience in Costa Rica in PES and the increased revenues from PAs. Costa Rica’s PES program was established in 1996 (Forest Law 7575), and through FONAFIFO has established mechanisms for payment to small and medium-sized landowners who implement sustainable forest management activities that promote the conservation and recovery of the country's forest cover. The project will take advantage to this experience to modify the existing PES system to include ecosystem services provided by wetlands. Similarly, Costa Rica has extensive experience in ecotourism and PAs are key for revenue generation for the SINAC. As a cost-saving measure, the project will build on the experience gained in those PAs that are the most visited in the country (e.g., Tortuguero National Park, Cahuita National Park, and Manuel Antonio National Park) in order to increase revenues from tourism in the IIPW.

2.8. SustainabilityEcological sustainability88. The ecological sustainability of the project will be achieved through a combined set of actions directed to improve the management effectiveness of each IIPW. This includes the implementation of protection and control plans for eleven (11) internationally important wetlands, which together with the physical demarcation of IIPW boundaries and ecologically sensitive wetland areas, will constitute the basis for the reduction of threats of wetlands biodiversity. Information about the status of wetland biodiversity in each IIPW will be generated through an ecological monitoring system that will use a set of indicators to track the condition of key species and ecosystems and will guide decision-making and planning for the long term. Local management programs for seven (7) IIPW will enhance public awareness about the importance of wetlands and will promote stakeholder participation in IIPW planning and management. This will allow a better understanding by the local community and other stakeholders of the socioeconomic and ecological benefits of wetlands and the importance of supporting their long-term conservation and sustainable use. In addition, the project will increase ecosystem representation by adding 12,063 ha of wetlands to the Térraba-Sierpe IIPW, thereby protecting additional ecosystems of global importance and key habitat for wetland biodiversity. Finally, the financial mechanisms to be

developed by the project to increase funding for IIPW will also provide meaningful incentives for the sustainable use and conservation of wetlands so as to reduce existing threats.

Social sustainability

89. The social sustainability of the project will be achieved through the direct participation of local stakeholders (e.g., communities and local governments) in the planning and implementation of wetlands conservation activities. This will enable local stakeholders to participate actively in the sustainable management of the wetlands which provide goods and services upon which the communities depend, such as food, flood protection, water storage, and scenic landscapes for ecotourism. The financial mechanisms to be developed by the project to increase funding for IIPW, which include PES schemes, a REDD+/C Neutrality and Environmental – Social Responsibility, and increased revenue from tourism, will generate financial resources and economic opportunities equally for men and women, thereby improving the well-being of local inhabitants and increasing their support for wetland conservation. Additionally, local communities (including women) will benefit from project training activities, which will focus on the sustainable use of wetlands. The involvement of local communities will increase the social sustainability of the project by enhancing ownership of the project, addressing people’s real needs, strengthening the relationships between the project executing agency and local stakeholders, and taking advantage of the skills, experience, and knowledge within the communities about wetland management and use. To this end, the project includes a stakeholder plan to guarantee that local communities and other stakeholders are involved in all stages of the project cycle: design, planning, implementation, and evaluation. At the national level, the project will result in greater awareness among key stakeholders about the value of wetlands, which will result in greater support for wetland conservation.

Institutional sustainability

90. The basis for institutional sustainability lies in strengthening the capacity of SINAC staff to improve the management effectiveness of Costa Rica’s IIPW. SINAC’s institutional capacity will be strengthened through training and by providing them with specific tools to enhance planning, management, and control (e.g., protection and control plans, a wetland ecological monitoring system, a local management program to promote public awareness, participation of stakeholders in IIPW management, and protocols for the control of invasive species). The project will strengthen the skills of SINAC’s staff (both at the Executive Secretariat and in the Conservation Areas) in PA management, implementing measures for wetland conservation and mitigating impacts to biodiversity in IIPW including impacts from invasive species and CC. To complement the capacity-building work, organizational procedures, staff functions, and responsibilities in relation to wetland management will be reviewed to strengthen SINAC’s system of addressing wetland matters and implementing the National Wetland Program and wetland component of the Marine Coastal Program. Additionally, greater financial resources for the sustainable management of protected wetlands will contribute to strengthen SINAC’s role as the national administrator of IIPW.

91. The individual and institutional capacity of staff of the municipalities in the vicinity of IIPW will also be strengthened through training in the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, the incorporation of wetland conservation in land use and regulatory planning, and the permitting of development projects. Close interaction between SINAC and the municipal authorities for wetlands management will facilitate inter-institutional communication and coordination to improve decision-making, thereby contributing to the institutional sustainability of the project.

Financial sustainability92. Financial sustainability will be achieved through securing sustainable financing for the management and protection of IIPW. Three financial mechanisms (wetland PES schemes, Pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility, and increased tourism revenues from visitation of IIPW) will be implemented during the life of the project, reducing the financial gap to cover basic management costs of IIPW by 11.2%. The valuation of ecosystem services in seven (7) IIPW will provide

economic information on the full value of goods and services provided by the selected wetland that will serve to consolidate the PES program during the duration of the project and which will be expanded after project completion. These actions will allow diversifying IIPW funding sources which currently rely mostly on limited government funding. The development of the financial mechanisms will include the training of PA staff for their implementation and the definition of effective mechanisms to ensure an increase in revenue reinvestment in IIPW, which is currently estimated at only 17%.

2.9. Replicability93. The conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystem services of IIPW in Costa Rica will have an impact on various levels. At the site level, a set of actions will be piloted in IIPW that will allow replication in other IIPW. For example, a local management program to promote awareness and the participation of stakeholders to increase understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological benefits and importance of wetlands will be implemented in seven (7) IIPW. Specific CC adaptation measures for wetlands will be piloted in four (4) IIPW. Finally, a REDD+ pilot project for 29,084 ha will be implemented in one (1) IIPW. The lessons learned and best practices related to these project actions have the potential to be replicated in the IIPW that will not have these activities. At the national level, improved institutional and individual capacity of SINAC and Conservation Area’s staff will benefit other PAs around the country, as their knowledge and management skills that are gained through this GEF initiative (e.g., PA management, protection, stakeholder participation, financing, and biodiversity monitoring) can be applied throughout the entire PA system.

94. The project also has the potential to be replicated at the international level, especially in countries in the region that share similar challenges and opportunities related to conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystem services provided by IIPW and wetlands that are part of the Ramsar network sites. The project will use available tools from the UNDP and the GEF (e.g., information network, discussion groups, documents and publications, etc.) to disseminate best practices and lessons learned so that they may be used to design and implement similar projects in Latin American and the Caribbean reagion. The cost to disseminate best practices and lessons learned will be $9,000 USD (an average of $1,800 per year) and has been incorporated into the project budget.

3. STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT

3.1. Incremental Cost AnalysisGlobal and National objectives95. The project will contribute to improving the management of IIPW in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of their ecosystem services. Although efforts are currently under way (baseline) to achieve this goal, additional efforts are still required. The institutional capacity, structures, and tools to manage IIPW will still need to be strengthened, and additional financial resources are required for their sustainable management. Under the baseline scenario, IIPW will remain threatened and the management effectiveness of the protected wetlands will remain weak. The GEF alternative will mitigate the prevailing threats and ensure the effective conservation and sustainable management of Costa Rica’s IIPW by having in place a strong institutional framework and capacity, increased protected wetland management effectiveness, effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, and sustainable financing. The GEF alternative will contribute to the maintenance of multiple ecosystem goods and services and the protection of globally significant biodiversity.

96. The project will yield substantial global environmental benefits by increasing the conservation and sustainable use of eleven (11) IIPW. The GEF alternative will increase wetland ecosystem representation within the national PA system by protecting an additional 12,063 ha of critical wetlands. Additionally, the project will improve the management effectiveness of seven (7) IIPW covering 210,089 ha. These wetlands provide critical habitat to endangered resident water bird species such as the jabiru stork (Jabiru mycteria) and species such as the great green macaw (Ara ambigua) and the near-threatened crested eagle

Morphnus guianensis. The wetlands contain important populations of fish, reptile, and mammal species such as the vulnerable American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), the tropical gar (Atractosteus tropicus), the near-threatened Jaguar (Pantera onca), vulnerable West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus), endangered Geoffroy’s spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi), and endangered nesting Caribbean sea turtles such as the leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea). Numerous endemic species such as salamanders (e.g., Spaerodactylus pacificus) and a wide variety of distinctive flora species are also present (such as the endangered Pithecelobium pseudotamarindus and Brosimun costaricanun). In addition, the project will provide important global benefits through the maintenance of vital ecosystem processes and services. For example, many of the IIPW are critical migration stop-over sites for water bird species, such as the American wigeon duck (Anas americana) and the Northern pintail (Anas acuta). These wetlands also provide important food sources for fish, act as spawning grounds and nurseries, provide critical fish migration paths, contribute to water quality improvement, water storage, aquifer recharge, and CC mitigation.

Baseline Scenario97. Although important investments will be made under the “business as usual” scenario, these investments alone will not overcome the barriers that currently prevent mitigating the threats to ensure the effective conservation and sustainable management of IIPW, and to have in place a strong institutional framework and capacity, increased PA management effectiveness, effective inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, and sustainable financing. The baseline programs include multiple investments that are planned for the 2013-2017 time period.

98. Existing and planned investments for baseline programs and activities for the 2013-2017 time period are estimated at $56,861,835 USD. Baseline activities include a total investment of $51,109,772 USD by the Government of Costa Rica through SINAC and the Conservation Areas. Through the German Development Cooperation Agency (GIZ)-funded BIOMARCC project, $147,000 USD will be invested in the development of a CC adaptation strategy for marine-coastal areas and in economic valuation studies assessing the ecosystem services of marine-coastal resources. The Forever Costa Rica Program will provide approximately $202,200 USD in funding for initiatives related to the objectives of this project. A loan from the IADB to Costa Rica for sustainable tourism will allow the investment of $2,991,000 USD while $325,000 will be invested from debt for nature swaps. Finally, a total of $2,086,863 USD will be reinvested from revenue generated from tourism and PES.

GEF Alternative to Generate Global Benefits99. The alternative GEF scenario will increase PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands. Incremental financing will be in the amount of $14,731,426 USD; $2,505,876 USD will be provided by the GEF and $12,225,550 USD will be provided by co-financing sources. The GEF alternative will include investments from SINAC ($10,874,650 USD), the Forever Costa Rica Program ($711,000 USD), the GIZ/BIOMARCC project ($426,600 USD), and the UNDP ($213,300 USD).

100. The alternative GEF scenario will also increase and diversify the resources for the sustainable management of IIPW. The incremental financing expected for this component is $5,167,804 USD; $1,023,527 USD will be provided by the GEF and $4,144,277 USD will be provided by co-financing sources. The GEF alternative will include investments from SINAC ($3,686,377 USD), the Forever Costa Rica Program ($241,000 USD), the GIZ/BIOMARCC project ($144,600 USD), and the UNDP ($72,300 USD).

101. System Boundary : The GEF alternative will benefit eleven (11) IIPW throughout the country. It will allow the expansion of one (1) existing IIPW (Térraba-Sierpe) in Costa Rica, thereby increasing wetland ecosystem representation in Costa Rica’s PA system. This will represent an increase from 569,742 ha to 581,805 ha of IIPW. In addition, the project will strengthen institutional capacity and address threats (e.g., invasive species, CC, and agricultural and urban expansion) to IIPW in order to

improve management effectiveness and promote their conservation and sustainable use. Finally, the GEF alternative will increase and diversify the resources for the financial sustainable of IIPW management and reduce the financial gap to cover basic management costs.

102. Incremental costs summary : The incremental cost matrix presented below summarizes baseline costs and incremental activity costs for each project component. The total baseline amounts to $56,861,835 USD. The costs of the incremental activities required to contribute to global benefits include $3,705,873 USD to be funded by the GEF and $17,188,318 USD to be provided by co-financers, for a total of $20,894,191USD.

103. In summary, the GEF alternative has a total cost of $77,756,026 USD, 4.8% of which will be provided by GEF (excluding PPG resources). A summary of the GEF alternative follows.

Baseline (USD) Alternative Increment (USD)Outcome 1: Protected area (PA) system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands

SINAC 51,109,772 GEF 2,505,876 GEF 2,505,876

GIZ/BIOMARCC 147,000 Co-financing 12,225,550 Co-financing 12,225,550

Forever Costa Rica Program 202,200 SINAC 10,874,650

IADB/Government of Costa Rica 2,991,000 Forever Costa Rica

Program 711,000

GIZ/BIOMARCC 426,600UNDP 213,300

Baseline 54,449,972

Subtotal baseline 54,449,972 Subtotal alternative 69,181,398 Subtotal increment 14,731,426Outcome 2: Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

Debt for nature swaps 325,000 GEF 1,023,527 GEF 1,023,527

Reinvested IIPW revenues (tourism and PES)

2,086,863 Co-financing 4,144,277 Co-financing 4,144,277

SINAC 3,686,377

Forever Costa Rica Program 241,000


Baseline 2,411,863

Subtotal baseline 2,411,863 Subtotal alternative 7,579,667 Subtotal increment 5,167,804Project Management

GEF 176,470 GEF 176,470Co-financing 818,491 Co-financing 818,491

SINAC 727,291 Forever Costa Rica

Program 48,000


Baseline NA

Subtotal baseline: NA Subtotal alternative 994,961 Subtotal increment: 994,961

TOTAL

Total GEF 3,705,873 Total GEF 3,705,873Total Co-financing 17,188,318 Total Co-financing 17,188,318Total Baseline 56,861,835

TOTAL BASELINE 56,861,835 TOTAL

ALTERNATIVE 77,756,026 TOTAL INCREMENT 20,894,191

3.2. Project Results Framework Indicator Baseline Target Verification

MechanismsRisks and

AssumptionsProject objective: To improve management in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of internationally important wetlands.

Total area (in hectares [ha]) of IIPW within the SINAC

569,742 ha 581,805 ha (Térraba-Sierpe: 12,063 ha, expanded)

Databases, technical reports, and maps. Official gazette

Political willingness and social consensus to expand existing IIPW MPAs

Change in the management effectiveness of seven (7) internationally important wetland PAs as measured through the METT scorecard

Palo Verde: 47.4% Terraba Sierpe: 63.5% Caño Negro WR: 57.5% Maquenque: 39.5% Caribe Noreste: 53.5% Gandoca Manzanillo NWR: 56.5% Tamarindo NWR: 56.5%

Palo Verde: 67.4% Terraba Sierpe: 83.5% Caño Negro WR: 77.5% Maquenque: 59.5% Caribe Noreste:73.5% Gandoca Manzanillo NWR: 76.5% Tamarindo NWR: 76.5%

Updated METT scorecards Annual project evaluation reports

The Government of Costa Rica, the civil sector, and the private sector maintain an interest in improving the management of IIPW Stable national and international economic conditionsChange in the financial

capacity of the eleven (11) internationally important wetland PAs according to that established through the total average score in the UNDP/GEF Sustainability Scorecard

Legal, regulatory, and institutional framework: 31.1% Business planning and tools for cost-effective management: 18.6% Tools for generating income and its allocation: 22.5% Total: 25.0%

Legal, regulatory, and institutional framework: 51.1% Business planning and tools for cost-effective management: 38.6% Tools for generating income and its allocation: 42.5% Total: 45.0%

Updated Financial Sustainability Scorecard

Component 1. Protected area (PA) system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands

Change in ecological representativeness (ha) within eleven IIPW

Open water: 1,299 ha Shallow waters: 2,579 ha Swamp forest: 31,989 ha Palm forest: 61,582 ha Mixed wetlands: 809 ha Lagoons: 141ha Mangroves: 17,345 ha Herbaceous swamp: 19,535 ha

Open water: 2,069.91 ha Shallow waters: 2,579 ha Swamp forest: 31,989 ha Palm forest: 64,453.5 ha Mixed wetlands: 809 ha Lagoons: 146.63 ha Mangroves: 20,349.93 ha Herbaceous swamp: 19,535 ha Other wetlands:

GIS data and maps Technical and scientific reports/ publications

There is willingness by the decision-makers to expand one existing IIPW

3,844.57 ha None-wetland ecosystems (forested areas and islands): 1,565.46 ha

Total area (ha) of IIPW area demarcated and legalized for conservation purposes, and recognized by stakeholders by year 3.

0 12,063 ha (Térraba-Sierpe National Wetland)

Field verification reports Project monitoring and evaluation reports: PIR/APR, mid-term and final evaluation reports

Change in the coverage of the invasive species Typha dominguensis in the Palo Verde IIPW

0% 10% decrease by project end

Field notes Monitoring databases Project technical reports

Sampling efforts are optimal Effective monitoring and controlChange in the spawning

rate of the devil fish (Hypostomus plecostomus) invasive species in two IIPW

Caño Negro IIPW: 0% Caribe Noreste IIPW (Tortuguero National Park and Barra del Colorado National Wildlife Refuge): 0%

Note: baseline spawning rate will be defined during the first year of project execution

25% decrease by the project end

Number of staff (including women) from SINAC and other national and local agencies trained for the protection and management of IIPW



Minutes and databases from the training events Project monitoring and evaluation reports: PIR/APR, mid-term and final evaluation reports

Continued public support to the conservation and sustainable use IIPW

Outputs:1.1. Scientific analysis, public consultation, boundary demarcation, legal notification, and gazettal of the expansion of one existing IIPW, in line with the

country’s conservation gap analysis and updated national wetland inventory.1.2. Eleven (11) existing IIPW demarcated.1.3. Protection and control plans drafted in eleven (11) and implemented in seven (7) internationally important wetlands. 1.4. Specific climate change adaptation measures for wetlands piloted in three priority sites and integrated in the national Biodiversity Climate Change Adaptation

Strategy.

1.5. Wetland ecological monitoring system established for eleven (11) IIPW and articulated with the National Ecological Monitoring Program (PROMEC).1.6. Updated National Wetland Inventory.1.7. Local management program promotes awareness and participation of stakeholders and increases understanding of the socioeconomic and ecological benefits

and importance of wetlands in seven (7) protected areas.1.8. Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of at least 50 staff within SINAC and other relevant institutions contributes to the conservation and

sustainable management of wetland protected areas in line with the Ramsar CEPA Programme.Component 2. Resources for sustainable management of internationally important protected wetlands increased and diversified

Change in the financial gap (USD) to cover basic management costs of eleven (11) IIPW as a result of new financial mechanisms

$63,671,335 USD (2012-2017) or $10,611,889 USD annually

$58,878,676 USD (2012-2017; reduction of 11.2% or $1,185,626 USD annually)

Updated Financial Sustainability Scorecard IIPW annual financial reports Project monitoring and evaluation reports: PIR/APR, mid-term and final evaluation reports

Stable national and international economic conditions allow a sustained flow of new financial resources Stable markets for the sale and purchase of environmental services, including carbon credits Reliable records of the new revenues for IIPW

Annual income (USD) for IIPW by type of financial mechanisms implemented

PES incentive for ecosystem conservation: $626,415 USD REDD+/C-Neutrality: $0 USD Tourism: $1,315,798 USD

PES incentive for ecosystem conservation: $726,187 USD REDD+/C-Neutrality: $722,324 USD Tourism: $1,679,328 USD

Outputs:2.1. Valuation of ecosystem services in seven (7) PAs gathers economic information on full value of goods and services provided by the wetland sites.2.2. Financial mechanisms are validated on site and serve to increase the level of funding for seven internationally important wetlands: Adjustment of existing system of payment for ecosystem services (PES) incentive for ecosystem conservation to include ecosystem services provided by

wetlands Pilot REDD+ project/C-Neutrality and Social-Environmental Responsibility Increased tourism revenues from wetland protected areas.

4. TOTAL BUDGET AND WORKPLAN

Award ID: 00076970Project ID(s): 00088054

Award Title:Costa Rica: Conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystem services of internationally important protected wetlands

Business Unit: CRI10Project Title: Conservation, sustainable use of biodiversity, and maintenance of ecosystem services of internationally important protected wetlandsPIMS no. 4966

Implementing Partner (Executing Agency)

National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC)

GEF Outcome/Atlas

Activity

Responsible Party/

Implementing Agent

Fund ID

Donor Name

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ATLAS Budget Description

Amount Year 1 (USD)

Amount Year 2 (USD)

Amount Year 3 (USD)

Amount Year 4 (USD)

Amount Year 5 (USD)

Total (USD)

See Budget Note:

OUTCOME 1 (INCLUDES

MONITORING AND

EVALUATION COSTS)

SINAC GEF 71300 Local Consultants 87,654 98,920 71,495 56,546 40,535 355,150 1

71400 Contractual Services Individuals 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 16,000 80,000 2

71600 Travel 40,500 37,650 35,640 27,180 24,530 165,500 3

72100 Contractual Services Companies 292,597 330,208 238,657 188,755 135,308 1,185,525 4

72200 Equipment 110,682 101,992 55,341 49,212 36,773 354,000 5

72400 Communic. & Audio Visual Equip 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,000 6

72500 Supplies 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000 7

74200 Audio Visual & Print Production Cost 15,060 15,060 15,060 15,060 15,060 75,300 8

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 1,206 1,206 1,206 1,206 1,207 6,031 9

75700 Training, Workshops & Confer 25,642 33,940 26,949 21,799 11,670 120,000 10

Subtotal Outcome 1 598,341 643,976 469,348 384,758 290,083 2,386,506

71200 International Consultants 14,700 19,600 34,300 11

71300 Local Consultants 9,800 13,300 23,100 1271400 Contractual Services

Individuals2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 4,000 12,000 13

71600 Travel 10,950 11,950 22,900 14

72100 Contractual Services Companies 3,000 500 2,000 500 2,200 8,200 15

72500 Supplies 150 170 320 1674100 Audits 3,710 3,710 3,710 3,710 3,710 18,550 17

Subtotal M&E 8,710 6,210 43,310 6,210 54,930 119,370Total Outcome 1 607,051 650,186 512,658 390,968 345,013 2,505,876

OUTCOME 2 SINAC GEF


71600 Travel 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,000 19

72100 Contractual Services Companies 232,715 262,629 189,814 150,125 107,617 942,900 20

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 726 726 725 725 725 3,627 21

Total Outcome 2 248,841 278,755 205,939 166,250 123,742 1,023,527

PROJECT MANAGEMENT


72200 Equipment 4,800 500 500 3,100 500 9,400 2372500 Supplies 400 400 400 400 400 2,000 24

74500 Miscellaneous Expenses 614 614 614 614 614 3,070 25

Total Project Management 38,214 33,914 33,914 36,514 33,914 176,470

PROJECT TOTAL 894,106 962,855 752,511 593,732 502,669 3,705,873

Total Budget Summary

Donor NameAmount Year

1 (USD)Amount Year

2 (USD)Amount Year

3 (USD)Amount Year

4 (USD)Amount Year

5 (USD) Total (USD)GEF 894,106 962,855 752,511 593,732 502,669 3,705,873SINAC 3,057,660 3,057,660 3,057,660 3,057,660 3,057,678 15,288,318Forever Costa Rica Program 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000GIZ/BIOMARCC project 600,000 600,000UNDP 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000

TOTAL 4,811,766 4,280,515 4,070,171 3,911,392 3,820,347 20,894,191

Project Budget Notes

Atlas CategoryAtlas Code Budget Notes

Outcome 11. Local Consultants 71300 a) PA Legal Expert: legal and land property assessment and mapping for the expansion of one (1) IIPW. Total cost:

$13,600; 16 weeks at $850/week.b) Communication Expert 1: Public consultation for the expansion of one (1) IIPW. Total cost: $2,250; 3 weeks at $750/week.c) PA Protection and Control Expert. Development of protection and control plans for eleven (11) IIPW. Total cost: $124,950; 147 weeks at $850/week.d) Invasive Species Expert 1. Collect and produce baseline information on wetlands invasive species in eleven (11) IIPW. Total cost: $12,750; 15 weeks at $850/week.e) Invasive Species Expert 2. Implement a protocol for the control of invasive species and develop an early warning system for the three study pilot sites. Total cost: $34,850; 41 weeks at $850/week.f) Invasive Species Expert 3: Risk assessment for potential invasive species. Total cost: $34,850; 41 weeks at $850/week.g) Communication Expert 2: program to disseminate information about threats, impacts, and preventive measures for stakeholders of IIPW. Total cost: $15,000; 20 weeks at $750/week.h) Communication Expert 3: Communication strategy, dissemination, promotion of participation and education regarding protection and control activities in IIPW. Total cost: $45,000; 60 weeks at $750/week.i) PA Planning Expert. Tool for conservation planning and management. Total cost: $27,200; 32 weeks at $850/week.j) Wetland Ecological Monitoring Expert 1. Application of ecological condition indices for wetland ecological monitoring. Total cost: $20,400; 24 weeks at $850/week.k) Information Management Expert: map-based query and browser interface for wetland ecological monitoring. Total cost: $9,000; 10 weeks at $900/week.l) Wetland Ecological Monitoring Expert 3: assess changes in wetlands' ecological condition. Total cost: $15,300; 18 weeks at $850/week.

2. Contractual Services – Individuals

71400 PA Planning Expert/Project Coordinator. Support to increase PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands. Total cost: $80,000; 20 months at $4,000/month.

3. Travel 71600 a) Travel costs related to PA expansion. Total cost: $15,000.b) Travel costs (fieldwork) related to the control of invasive species. Total cost: $65,000.c) Travel costs (fieldwork) related wetland ecological monitoring system for eleven (11) IIPW. Total cost: $58,000.d) Travel costs related to local management program to increase awareness, stakeholder participation, and understanding of the importance of IIPW. Total cost: $27,500.

4. Contractual Services - Companies

72100 Contractual services for:a) Demarcation of 11 existing IIPW. Total cost: $187,000; $17,000/IIPW.b) Climate change adaptation measures for wetlands piloted in three (3) priority sites. Total cost: $105,000; $35,000/site.c) Strengthened individual and institutional capacity of SINAC and other relevant institutions. Total cost: $393,525.d) Seven (7) work plans and estimates of the current state of IIPW for ecological monitoring. Total cost: $75,000.e) National Wetlands Inventory. Total cost: $350,000.

f) Local management program promotes awareness and participation of stakeholders in IIPW management. Total cost: $75,000.

5. Equipment 72200 a) Equipment and materials for the expansion of one (1) IIPW. Total cost: $11,000.b) Equipment and materials for the control of invasive species. Total cost: $187,500.c) Equipment and materials for wetland ecological monitoring system for eleven (11) IIPW. Total cost: $130,500.d) Equipment and materials for local management program to promote awareness and participation of stakeholders. Total cost: $25,000.

6. Communic. & Audio Visual Equip

72400 Communications related to increase in PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands. Total cost: $15,000; $3,000/yr. for 5 years.

7. Supplies 72500 Office and field supplies related to increase in PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands. Total cost $30,000; $6,000/yr. for 5 years.

8. Audiovisual & Print Prod. Costs

74200 Publications related to increase in PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands (control and protection plans, public awareness, wetland ecological monitoring, etc.). Total cost: $75,300; $15,060/yr. for 5 years.

9. Miscellaneous Expenses

74500 Incidental expenses related to increase in PA system representation and emplacement of institutional capacity for the sustainable management and conservation of wetlands. Total cost: $6,031.

10. Training, Workshops and Confer

75700 a) Public consultation for the expansion of one (1) IIPW. Total cost: $10,500.b) Local information program regarding the digital boundaries of the new IIPW. Total cost: $12,500.c) Local consultations for the development of protection and control plans for eleven (11) IIPW. Total cost: $20,000.d) Local consultations (workshops) to collect and produce baseline information on wetlands invasive species in 11 IIPW. Total cost: $7,500.e) Workshops related to risk assessment of invasive species. Total cost: $7,500.f) Workshops to disseminate information about threats, impacts, and preventive measures for stakeholders of IIPW. Total cost: $24,000.g) Workshops to inform stakeholders about the wetland monitoring system development and results. Total cost: $18,000.h) Workshops and meeting for local management program to promote awareness and participation of stakeholders. Total cost: $20,000.

Monitoring and Evaluation 11. International Consultants

71200 a) Mid-term project evaluation: Total cost: $14,700; 3.5 weeks at $4,200/week.b) Final project evaluation. Total cost: $19,600; 4 weeks at $4,900/week.

12. Local Consultants 71300 a) Mid-term project evaluation: Total cost: $9,800; 3.5 weeks at $2,800/week.b) Final project evaluation. Total cost: $13,300; 4 weeks at $3,325/week.

13. Contractual Services – Individuals

71400 a) Review and systematization of lessons learned and best practices. Total cost: $5,000; $1,000/yr.b) Terminal report. Total cost: $2,000c) Technical reports on specific issues or areas of activity of the project. Total cost: $5,000; $1,000/yr.

14. Travel 71600 a) Travel costs for mid-term evaluation. Total cost: $10,950.b) Travel costs for final evaluation: Total cost $11,950.

15. Contractual 71400 a) Project Inception Workshop. Total cost $2,500.

Services – Companies b) Mid-term ($1,500) and final evaluation ($1,700) related workshops. Total cost: $3,200.c) Project board meetings. Total cost: $2,500; $500/yr.

16. Supplies 72500 Supplies for mid-term ($150) and final ($170) evaluations. Total cost: $320.17. Audits 74100 External audit (5). Total cost: $18,550; $3,710/yr.Outcome 218. Contractual Services – Individuals

71400 a) Environment Financial Expert/Project Coordinator: Technical support to increased and diversified resources for sustainable management of IIPW. Total cost: $72,000; 18 months at $4,000/month.

19. Travel 71600 Local travel expenses for Environment Financial Expert/Project Coordinator. Total cost: $5,000; $1,000/yr. during 5 years.20. Contractual Services - Companies

72100 Contractual services for:a) Valuation of ecosystem services in seven (7) PAs. Total cost: $196,000; $28,000/IIPW.b) On-site validation of financial mechanisms to increase the level of funding for seven (7) IIPW, including:

i. Adjustment of existing system of PES. Total cost: $220,000.ii. Implementation of REDD+/ C Neutrality + Environmental Social Responsibility pilot project, including determining baseline (estimation of C stocks in the Mata Redonda wetlands). Total cost: $410,000.iii. Increased tourism revenues from IIPW. Total cost: $116,900; $16,700/IIPW.

21. Miscellaneous Expenses

74500 Incidental expenses related to increased and diversified resources for sustainable management of IIPW. Total cost: $3,627.

Project Management22. Contractual Services- Individuals

71400 a) Project Coordinator (part time): project planning, day-to-day management of project activities, project reporting, maintaining key relationships with stakeholders. Total cost: $84,000; 21 months at $4,000/month.b) Administrative Assistant (part time). Responsible for financial management of the project, accounting, purchasing, and reporting. Total cost: $78,000; 60 months at $1,300/month.

23. Equipment 72200 a) Video beam. Total cost: $500.b) Digital camera. Total cost: $200c) Four (4) computers. Total cost: $5,200, $1,300/unit.d) One (1) printer. Total cost: $1,000.e) IT supplies & maintenance. Total cost: $2,500; $500/year

24. Supplies 72500 Office supplies related to project management. Total cost: $2,000; $400/year for 5 years.25. Miscellaneous Expenses

74500 Incidental expenses related to project management. Total cost: $3,070.

5. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

104. The project will be executed following UNDP guidelines for National Implementation (NIM) and is an integral part of the UNDP Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) (2013-2017) signed between the Government of Costa Rica (GoCR) and the UNDP in January 31, 2013. The signing of the UNDP CPAP (January 31, 2013) constitutes a legal endorsement by the GoCR.

105. To ensure UNDP’s accountability for programming activities and use of resources while fostering national ownership, the appropriate management arrangements and oversight of UNDP programming activities will be established. The management structure will respond to the project’s needs in terms of direction, management, control, and communication. The project’s structure will be flexible in order to adjust to potential changes during project execution. The UNDP Project Management structure consists of roles and responsibilities that bring together the various interests and skills involved in, and required by, the project.

106. The UNDP will act as the Implementing Entity for this project. As a part of the Steering Committee (SC), UNDP brings to the table a wealth of experience working with the GoCR in the area of biodiversity conservation, PA management, and sustainable development, and is well-positioned to assist in both capacity-building and institutional strengthening. The UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) and UNDP/GEF Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) in Panama will be responsible for transparent practices, appropriate conduct, and professional auditing. Staff and consultants will be contracted according to the established rules and regulations of the United Nations and all financial transactions and agreements will similarly follow the same rules and regulations.

107. The project will be executed by SINAC, as the Implementing Partner. Article 22 of the Law of Biodiversity grants SINAC decentralized powers regarding protected areas, including the issue of international cooperation; this ruling was ratified through Criterion of the Attorney General's Office C-305-2009. Accordingly, the SINAC will sign the grant agreement with UNDP on behalf of the GoCR and will be responsible for the coordination and management of the project and will monitor compliance with Work Plans as the basis for project execution. SINAC will coordinate work with other institutions collaborating on this project and will be the sole project manager.

108. The Executive Director of SINAC will serve as the Project Director. He/she will be assigned to provide general project oversight to the project and will represent the interest of the GoCR during project implementation. In addition, a National Institutional Coordinator will be responsible for coordinating the interaction between the Project Management Unit (PMU) and SINAC, and other national institutions. The duration of the project will be five (5) years.

5.1. UNDP Support Services 109. The UNDP CO will provide support to the Project Coordinator in the administration and management of the project, as well as provide technical assistance, as required by the needs of the project. The project will support an Administrative/Finance Assistant position to provide direct day-to-day project implementation. The UNDP Costa Rica Environment, Energy and Risk Management Officer, Finance Officer, Procurement Officer, and M&E Officer will provide technical, financial, administrative, and management support to the project as is required. Additional support roles will be undertaken by the UNDP Regional Bureau (RBLAC) and the Regional UNDP/GEF Offices.

110. The project will be managed by SINAC based on UNDP´s principles of ethics and transparency. Taking these principles into account, SINAC should prepare, during the first two (2) months of the project implementation, a manual of procedures in cooperation with the UNDP CO that will apply to the execution of this project.

5.2. Collaborative arrangements with related projects 111. Steps will be taken by the project’s Steering Committee to promote the interaction between the implementation team and Project Coordinators who are managing related projects and ensure the coordination and synchronization of efforts as well as promote cross-fertilization, where possible. Collaborative mechanisms with specific projects were outlined in section 2.3. Design principles and strategic considerations of this Project Document.

5.3. Inputs to be provided by all partners 112. The direct execution of project activities is expected to be carried out through the PMU, which will be physically located within SINAC’s headquarters in the city of San José de Costa Rica. Oversight of the PMU will be a function of the Project Director.

113. The SINAC will be part of the project’s SC and will participate technically and operationally in the development of the three components of the Project.

5.4. Audit arrangements114. The project will be audited in accordance with the UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules and applicable audit policies.

5.5. Agreement on intellectual property rights and use of logo on the project’s deliverables 115. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF and UNDP for providing funding, the GEF and UNDP logos should appear on all relevant project publications and project hardware, among other items. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by UNDP and GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to both UNDP and GEF.

116. In accordance with standard UNDP procedures, all resources and equipment gained through project support remain the property of UNDP until project closure, at which time these resources will be transferred to SINAC. The Project Director will supervise the correct use and maintenance of these resources and equipment.

5.6. Roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in project management 117. SINAC will establish a PMU responsible for directing, supervising, and coordinating project implementation. The established PMU will be hosted by SINAC and supported by its technical and administrative staff and its network of wetland and PA experts.

118. The Steering Committee (SC) is the group responsible for making management decisions for the project by consensus when guidance is required by the Project Coordinator. Responsibilities of the SC include making recommendations for UNDP/Implementing Partner approval of project plans and revisions. In order to ensure UNDP’s ultimate accountability, the SC decisions should be made in accordance with standards that ensure development results, best value for the money, fairness, integrity, transparency, and effective international competition.

119. The SC is consulted by the Project Coordinator to make decisions when the Project Coordinator's tolerances (normally in terms of time and budget) have been exceeded (flexibility). Based on the approved Annual Work Plan (AWP), the SC may review and approve project quarterly plans when required and authorize any major departure from these agreed-upon quarterly plans. The SC is the authority that signs off on the completion of each quarterly plan and authorizes the start of the next quarterly plan. It ensures that required resources are committed and arbitrates any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems between the project and external entities.

120. The SC will be composed of the Executive Director of SINAC, and the UNDP’s Resident Representative or his/her delegates). The SC will meet once every six months; however, additional meetings may be scheduled based on the project’s needs. The Project Director and the UNDP CO will be responsible for convening and planning the SC meetings.

121. An Inter-institutional Advisory Committee (IAC) will be established and will help with the coordination of other institutions and organizations related to internationally important protected wetlands and provide technical feedback to the project. A preliminary list of potential members of the IAC includes the Project Coordinator, SINAC’s National Institutional Coordinator, the UNDP’s Environment, Energy and Risk Management, the National Wetlands Committee, and the Management of Protected Areas of SINAC. Other institutions may be invited to participate when necessary. In addition, Project Coordinators from related initiatives will be invited to participate in selected sessions to ensure proper project coordination, cross-fertilization, and participation. The IAC will meet at least three times each year during the project implementation period.

122. The Project Coordinator will be contracted by SINAC through UNDP following the principles of transparency and equal opportunities for everybody, and will be financially supported by project funds. The Project Coordinator has the authority to run the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Implementing Partner within the constraints/tolerances laid down by the SC. The Project Coordinator’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project delivers the outputs specified in this Project Document, to the required standards of quality and within the specified constraints of time and cost. Terms of Reference for the Project Coordinator are included in Annex 8.2 of this Project Document.

123. Project Assurance: Project assurance is the responsibility of each SC member; however, the role can be delegated. The project assurance role supports the SC by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures appropriate project management and that milestones are achieved. Project assurance is independent of the Project Coordinator; therefore, the SC cannot delegate any of its assurance responsibilities to the Project Coordinator. The UNDP Environment, Energy, and Risk Management Officer will hold the project assurance role.

Project Director & National Institutional

Coordinator

Steering Committee

Project AssuranceUNDP

Project Coordinator

(PMU)

Project Organization Structure

Administrative Assistant

Project Team

Senior Supplier:UNDP/GEF SINAC

Inter-institutional Advisory

Committee

6. MONITORING FRAMEWORK AND EVALUATION

124. Project M&E will be conducted in accordance with the established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the project team and the UNDP-CO with support from the UNDP/GEF RCU in Panama City. The Project Results Framework in Section 3 provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. The M&E plan includes an inception report, project implementation reviews, quarterly and annual review reports, and mid-term and final evaluations. The following sections outline the principle components of the M&E plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project’s M&E plan will be presented and finalized in the Project Inception Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.

Project Inception Phase

125. A Project Inception Workshop (IW) will be held within the first three (3) months of project start-up with the full project team, relevant GoCR counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO, and representation from the UNDP-GEF RCU, as well as UNDP-GEF headquarters (HQ) as appropriate.

126. A fundamental objective of this IW will be to help the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goal and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project results framework and the GEF-5 Tracking Tool for biodiversity Focal Area (BD-1). This will include reviewing the results framework (indicators, means of verification, and risks and assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise, finalizing the AWP with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.

127. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the IW will be to: a) introduce project staff to the UNDP-GEF team that will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible RCU staff; b) detail the roles, support services, and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff in relation to the project team; c) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and M&E requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project-related budgetary planning, budget reviews including arrangements for annual audit, and mandatory budget re-phasings.

128. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase. The IW will also be used to plan and schedule the Tripartite Committee (TPC) Reviews.

Monitoring Responsibilities and Events129. A detailed schedule of project review meetings will be developed by the project management in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: a) tentative timeframes for TPC Reviews, Steering Committee (or relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms); and b) project-related M&E activities.

130. Day-to-day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Coordinator based on the project's AWP and its indicators. The Project Coordinator will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion. The Project Coordinator will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at the IW with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF RCU. Specific targets for the first-year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the AWP. Targets and indicators for subsequent years will be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

131. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined through specific studies that are to form part of the project’s activities including changes in total area (in hectares [ha]) of internationally important wetlands under protection, changes on the number of key species for biological groups within seven (7) PAs in wetlands of international importance, and change in the management effectiveness of seven (7) existing PAs as measured through the METT scorecard.

132. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by the UNDP CO through quarterly meetings with the project implementation team, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will allow parties to take stock of and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in a timely fashion to ensure the timely implementation of project activities. The UNDP CO and UNDP-GEF RCU, as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to the project’s field sites, or more often based on an agreed upon schedule to be detailed in the project's Inception Report/AWP to assess first-hand project progress. Any other member of the Steering Committee can also take part in these trips, as decided by the Steering Committee. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by the UNDP CO and circulated no less than one month after the visit to the project team, all Steering Committee members, and UNDP-GEF.

133. Annual monitoring will occur through the TPC Reviews. This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to TPC review at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve (12) months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) and submit it to UNDP CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPC for review and comments.

134. The APR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPC. The Project Coordinator will present the APR to the TPC, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPC participants. The Project Coordinator will also inform the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary. The TPC has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be developed at the IW, based on delivery rates and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

135. The Terminal TPC Review is held in the last month of project operations. The Project Coordinator is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and to UNDP-GEF RCU. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TPC meeting in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TPC meeting. The terminal TPC review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learned can be captured to feed into other projects being implemented.

Project Monitoring Reporting136. The Project Coordinator, in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team, will be responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process and that are mandatory.

137. A Project Inception Report (IR) will be prepared immediately following the IW. It will include a detailed First Year/AWP divided in quarterly timeframes detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This work plan will include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP CO or the RCU or consultants, as well as timeframes for meetings of the project's decision-making structures. The IR will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the AWP, and including any M&E requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12-month timeframe. The IR will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions, and feedback mechanisms of project-related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may affect project implementation. When finalized, the IR will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to the IR’s circulation, the UNDP CO and UNDP-GEF’s RCU will review the document.

138. The Annual Project Report (APR) is a UNDP requirement and part of UNDP CO central oversight, monitoring, and project management. It is a self-assessment report by the project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting process and the Results-Oriented Annual Report (ROAR), as well as forming a key input to the TPC Review. An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the TPC Review, to reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's AWP and assess performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and partnership

work. The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following sections: a) project risks, issues, and adaptive management; b) project progress against pre-defined indicators and targets, c) outcome performance; and d) lessons learned and best practices.

139. The Project Implementation Review (PIR) is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under implementation for one year, a PIR must be completed by the CO together with the project management. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year and ideally prior to the TPC review. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPC meeting so that the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the Implementing Partner, UNDP CO, and the RCU in Panama. The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed, and analyzed by the RCU prior to sending them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP-GEF headquarters. In light of the similarities of both APR and PIR, UNDP-GEF has prepared a harmonized format for reference.

140. Quarterly Progress Reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the local UNDP CO and the UNDP-GEF RCU by the project team. Progress made shall be monitored in the UNDP Enhanced Results Based Management Platform and the risk log should be regularly updated in ATLAS based on the initial risk analysis included in Annex 8.1.

141. Specific Thematic Reports focusing on specific issues or areas of activity will be prepared by the project team when requested by UNDP, UNDP-GEF, or the Implementing Partner. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learned exercise, specific oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for their preparation by the project team.

142. A Project Terminal Report will be prepared by the project team during the last three (3) months of the project. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements, and outputs of the project; lessons learned; objectives met or not achieved; structures and systems implemented, etc.; and will be the definitive statement of the project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the project’s activities.

143. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive and specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national, and international levels. Technical Reports have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project-specific.

144. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the project in the form of journal articles or multimedia publications. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance and scientific worth of these reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research.

The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and (in consultation with UNDP, the GoCR, and other relevant stakeholder groups) will also plan and produce these publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

Independent Evaluation145. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:

146. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at exactly the mid-point of the project lifetime. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency, and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation, and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, ToRs, and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The ToRs for this Mid-Term Evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP-CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF RCU. The management response of the evaluation will be uploaded to the UNDP corporate systems, in particular the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC). The GEF-5 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area (BD-1) for the project will also be completed during the mid-term evaluation cycle.

147. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal Steering Committee meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the Mid-Term Evaluation. The Final Evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities and requires a management response which should be uploaded to PIMS and to the UNDP Evaluation Office Evaluation Resource Center (ERC). The ToRs for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP-CO based on guidance from the UNDP-GEF RCU. The GEF-5 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area (BD-1) will also be completed during the final evaluation.

Learning and Knowledge Sharing148. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In addition, the project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP-GEF sponsored networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common characteristics. UNDP-GEF RCU has established an electronic platform for sharing lessons between the project managers. The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific, policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project implementation though lessons learned. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons learned is an ongoing process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than once every twelve (12) months. UNDP-GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in categorizing, documenting, and reporting on lessons learned. Specifically, the project will ensure coordination in terms of avoiding overlap, sharing best practices, and generating knowledge products of best practices in the area of PA management and biodiversity wetland conservation and sustainable use with the current projects of Costa Rica’s portfolio.

M&E work plan and budget

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$* Time frame

Inception Workshop Project Coordinator UNDP CO UNDP GEF

$2,500 (GEF) $2,000 (CoF)

Within first two months of project start-up

Inception Report Project Team UNDP CO None Immediately

following IW

Measurement of Means of Verification of project results

UNDP GEF Regional Technical Advisor/Project Coordinator will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be determined during the initial phase of implementation of the project and the IW.

Start, mid-point, and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)

Oversight by Project Coordinator

Project Team

No separate M&E cost: to be absorbed within salary and travel costs of project staff

Annually prior to ARR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

ARR and PIR Project Coordinator and Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF

None Annually

Tripartite Committee Reviews and Reports

GoCR counterparts UNDP CO UNDP GEF RCU

None Annually, upon receipt of APR

Project Board Meetings Project Coordinator UNCP-CO GoCR representatives

$2,500 (GEF)$3,000 (CoF) Two times per year

Quarterly progress reports

Project Coordinator and Team None Quarterly

Technical reports Project Coordinator and Team Hired consultants as needed

$5,000 (GEF) $4,000 (CoF)

To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Mid-term Evaluation

Project Coordinator and Team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants (i.e., evaluation team)

$37,100 (GEF)$8,000 (CoF)

At the mid-point of project implementation

Final Evaluation

Project Coordinator and Team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF RCU External Consultants (i.e.

evaluation team)

$46,720 (GEF)$13,000 (CoF)

At least three months before the end of project implementation

Terminal Report Project Team UNDP-CO

$2,000 (GEF) $2,000 (CoF)

At least three months before the end of the project

Lessons learned Project Coordinator and Team UNDP-GEF RCU (suggested

$5,000 (GEF)$4,000 (CoF) Yearly

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$* Time frame

formats for documenting best practices, etc.)

Audit UNDP-CO Project Coordinator and Team

$18,550 (GEF)($3,710/yr.) Yearly

Visits to field sites

UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF RCU (as

appropriate) GoCR representatives

No separate M&E cost: paid from IA fees and operational budget

Yearly

TOTAL INDICATIVE COST (*Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses)

GEF $119,370CoF $36,000

Total $155,370

7. LEGAL CONTEXT

149. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) between the GoCR and the UNDP, signed by the parties on August 7, 1973 and approved by Law No. 5878. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the SBAA, refer to the government co-operating agency described in that Agreement.

150. The UNDP Resident Representative in Costa Rica is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified the agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes: a) revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document; b) revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation; c) mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency expenditure flexibility; and d) inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this Project Document.

151. This document, together with the CPAP, which was signed by the GoCR and UNDP and is incorporated by reference, constitutes a Project Document as referred to in the SBAA. All CPAP provisions apply to this document.

152. Consistent with the Article III of the SBAA, the responsibility for the safety and security of the Implementing Partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the Implementing Partner’s custody, rests with the Implementing Partner.

153. The Implementing Partner shall: a) put into place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried out; b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the Implementing Partner’s security and the full implementation of the security plan.

154. UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required herein shall be deemed a breach of this agreement.

155. The Implementing Partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism, and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP herein do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document.

http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm

8. ANNEXES

8.1. Risk Analysis

Project Title: To improve management in order to increase the conservation, sustainable use, and maintenance of the ecosystem services of internationally important wetlands.

Award ID: 00076970 Date: November 14, 2013

# Description Date

IdentifiedType Probability

and ImpactCountermeasures/ Management Response

Owner Submitted, Updated By

Last Update Status

1 New administration to be elected in 2014 no longer prioritizes wetland conservation and sustainable use and staff capacity built through the project is lost with the associated staff turnover.

March 28, 2012 (at PIF)

Political Enter probability on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) P = 2

Enter impact on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) I =2

The project team will fully socialize the project with the newly elected administration to ensure that the latter understands the socioeconomic and environmental benefits of the project and their role in project execution. In addition, to ensure the sustainability of the capacity building, the project goes beyond training government staff in wetland conservation and sustainable use, to include the development of institutional procedures, inter-institutional coordination mechanisms, and specific wetland course material for inclusion in the SINAC training program.

SINAC UNDP UNDP (At CEO Endorsement)

The risk persists

2 Insufficient commitment of key institutions with influence over wetlands to incorporate environmental


Institutional Enter probability on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) P = 3

The project includes a significant emphasis on increasing the level of awareness and understanding among key stakeholders about the value of wetlands and the importance of their


The risk persists

sustainability criteria and ensure the protection and sustainable use of wetlands.

Enter impact on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) I = 3

sustainable use and conservation. Substantial capacity building will be carried out with SINAC and other institutions with influence on wetlands (such as the Ministry of Agriculture and Costa Rican Institute of Tourism), and a local management program will be developed and implemented. Finally, financial incentives will be established to promote the adoption of environmentally-friendly activities by local stakeholders.

3 Lack of funding for a PES incentive for ecosystem conservation program reduces the expected level of available funding for IIPW management.

November 25 (at CEO Endorsement)

Financial Enter probability on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) P = 4Enter impact on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) I = 3

To reduce this risk, the project will work in close collaboration from the beginning with SINAC staff, making use of Costa Rica’s extensive experience that have successfully allowed to fund initiatives such as the Forever Costa Rica Fund and the FONAFIFO, through both public and private sources, including international donors.


The risk persists

4 Climate change (CC) negatively impacts wetland biodiversity.


Environmental Enter probability on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high) P = 2Enter impact on a scale

The project includes as one of its outputs the identification and incorporation of CC adaptation measures for wetlands. Furthermore, by strengthening the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands, they will be less vulnerable to the impacts


The risk persists

from 1 (low) to 5 (high) I = 2

of CC. In fact, wetlands can play an important role in the country’s adaptation to CC by acting as a barrier for storms and floods, for example, and can help mitigate CC by acting as a carbon sink. Finally, the project will support the establishment of a system to regularly collect biodiversity data from wetlands, which will enable decision makers to be able to identify changes over time (which could be related to CC) and carry out adaptive management.

8.2. Terms of Reference for Key Project Staff

The following are the indicative ToRs for the project management staff. The PMU will be staffed by a full-time Project Coordinator and a full-time Project Administrator/Finance Assistant, both of which will be nationally-recruited positions. ToRs for these positions will be further discussed with UNDP´s CO and will be fine-tuned during the IW so that roles and responsibilities and UNDP GEF reporting procedures are clearly defined and understood. Also, during the IW the ToRs for specific consultants and sub-contractors will be fully discussed and, for those consultancies to be undertaken during the first six months of the project, full ToRs will be drafted and selection and hiring procedures will be defined.

Project CoordinatorThe project executing agency, SINAC, in coordination with the UNDP CO, will hire the Project Coordinator to carry out the duties specified below, and to provide further technical assistance as required by the project team to fulfill the objectives of the project. He/she will be responsible for ensuring that the project meets its obligations to the GEF and the UNDP, with particular regard to the management aspects of the project, including supervision of staff, serving as stakeholder liaison, implementation of activities, and reporting. The Project Coordinator will be responsible for the day-to-day management of project activities and the delivery of its outputs, including the implementation of SINAC’s quality management system and planning process. The Project Coordinator will support and coordinate the activities of all partners, staff, and consultants as they relate to the execution of the project. The Project Coordinator will report to the Project Director and will be responsible for the following tasks:

Tasks: Prepare detailed work plan and budget under the guidance of the SC and SINAC. Make recommendations for modifications to the project budget and, where relevant, submit

proposals for budget revisions to the SC, SINAC, and UNDP. Facilitate project planning and decision-making sessions. Organize the contracting of consultants and experts for the project, including preparing ToRs for

all technical assistance required, preparation of an action plan for each consultant and expert, supervising their work, and reporting to the Project Director at SINAC.

Provide technical guidance and oversight for all project activities. Oversee the progress of the project components conducted by local and international experts,

consultants, and cooperating partners. Coordinate and oversee the preparation of all outputs of the project. Coordinate the preparation and implementation of the Project Inception Workshop and prepare

the Project Inception Report. Foster, establish, and maintain links with other related national and international programs and

national projects, including information dissemination through media such as web page actualization, etc.

Organize SC meetings at least once every semester as well as annual and final review meetings as required by SINAC and UNDP, and act as the secretary of the SC.

Organize required consultations or meetings with the technical group at SINAC, MINAE, NGOs, local communities, and other entities, in accordance with the requirements of each project component.

Organize meetings and convene the Inter-institutional Advisory Committee and prepare the reports of these meetings and follow up on the recommendations.

Coordinate and report the work of all stakeholders under the guidance of SINAC. Prepare PIRs/APRs in the language required by the GEF and the UNDP´s CO and attend annual

review meetings.

Ensure that all relevant information is made available in a timely fashion to SINAC regarding activities carried out nationally, including private and public sector activities, which impact the project.

Prepare and submit quarterly progress and financial reports to SINAC and UNDP as required, following the quality management system and internal administrative process at SINAC.

Assist in the development of educational and promotional materials regarding the conservation and sustainable use of internationally important protected wetlands, their biodiversity, and stakeholder communities, the achievements of the project, and other topics relevant to the project.

Coordinate and participate in M&E exercises to appraise project success and make recommendations for modifications to the project.

Coordinate the mid-term and final project evaluations in consultation with UNDP and SINAC. Prepare and submit technical concepts and requirements about the project requested by SINAC,

the GoCR, or other external entities. Perform other duties related to the project in order to achieve its strategic objectives. Ensure the project utilizes best practices and experiences from similar projects. Ensure the project utilizes the available financial resources in an efficient and transparent manner. Ensure that all project activities are carried out on schedule and within budget to achieve the

project outputs. Solve all technical and administrative issues that might arise during the project.

Outputs: Detailed work plans indicating dates for deliverables and budget. Documents required by the control management system of SINAC. ToRs and action plan of the staff and monitoring reports. List of names of potential advisors and collaborators and potential institutional links with other

related national and international programs and national projects. Quarterly reports and financial reports on the consultant’s activities, all stakeholders’ work, and

progress of the project to be presented to SINAC and UNDP (in the format specified by UNDP. A final report that summarizes the work carried out by consultants and stakeholders during the

period of the project, as well as the status of the project outputs at the end of the project. Minutes of meetings and/or consultation processes. Yearly PIRs/APRs. Adaptive management of project.

All documents are to be submitted to the Project Director and UNDP CO in MS Word and in hard copy.

Qualifications (indicative): A graduate academic degree in areas relevant to the project (e.g., PAs/wetland management and

conservation). Minimum 5 years of experience in project management with at least 3 years of experience in PA

management and wetlands. Experience facilitating consultative processes, preferably in the field of natural resource

management. Working knowledge of PA management and planning Proven ability to promote cooperation between and negotiate with a range of stakeholders, and to

organize and coordinate multi-disciplinary teams. Strong leadership and team-building skills. Self-motivated and ability to work under the pressure. Demonstrable ability to organize, facilitate, and mediate technical teams to achieve stated project

objectives. Familiarity with logical frameworks and strategic planning.

Strong computer skills. Flexible and willing to travel as required. Excellent communication and writing skills in Spanish and English. Previous experience working with a GEF-supported project is considered an asset.

Project Administrator/Finance AssistantThe Project Administrator/Finance Assistant is responsible for the financial and administrative management of the project activities and assists in the preparation of quarterly and annual work plans and progress reports for review and monitoring by SINAC. This position also provides support to the Project Coordinator for the day-to-day management of the project and secretarial or assistance functions. The Project Administrator/Finance Assistant will have the following responsibilities:

Financial management: Responsible for providing general financial and administrative support to the project. Take own initiative and perform daily work in compliance with annual work schedules. Assist project management in performing budget cycle: planning, preparation, revisions, and

budget execution. Assist the Project Coordinator in all project implementation activities. Provide assistance to partner agencies involved in project activities, performing and monitoring

general administrative and financial aspects to ensure compliance with budgeted costs in line with UNDP and SINAC policies and procedures.

Monitor project expenditures, ensuring that no expenditure is incurred before it has been authorized.

Assist project team in drafting quarterly project progress reports concerning financial issues. Ensure that UNDP procurement rules are followed during procurement activities that are carried

out by the project and maintain responsibility for the inventory of the project assets. Perform preparatory work for mandatory and general budget revisions, annual physical inventory

and auditing, and assist external evaluators in fulfilling their mission. Provide assistance in all logistical arrangements concerning project implementation. Prepare all outputs in accordance with the SINAC administrative and financial office guidance.

Administrative management: Make logistical arrangements for the organization of meetings, consultation processes, and

media. Provide secretarial support for the project staff. Draft contracts for international/local consultants and all project staff, in accordance with

instructions by the Contracts Office at SINAC. Draft agreements for entities related to the project, in accordance with instructions by the

Contracts Office at SINAC. Draft correspondence related to assigned project areas; provide clarification, follow up, and

responses to requests for information. Assume overall responsibility for administrative matters of a more general nature, such as

registry and maintenance of project files. Perform all other administrative and financial related duties, upon request. Provide support to the Project Coordinator and project staff in the coordination and organization

of planned activities and their timely implementation. Assist the Project Coordinator in liaising with key stakeholders from the GoCR counterpart, co-

financing agencies, civil society, and NGOs, as required. Ensure the proper use and care of the materials and equipment used on the project. Ensure the project utilizes the available financial resources in an efficient and transparent manner.

Ensure that all project financial and administrative activities are carried out on schedule and within budget to achieve the project outputs.

Resolve all administrative, financial, and support issues that might arise during the project.

Qualifications and skills: At least an Associate’s Degree in finance, business sciences, or related fields. Experience in administrative work, preferably in an international organization or related to

project execution. A demonstrated ability in the financial management of development projects and in liaising and

cooperating with government officials, NGOs, etc. Self-motivated and ability to work under the pressure. Team-oriented, possesses a positive attitude, and works well with others. Flexible and willing to travel as required. Excellent interpersonal skills. Excellent verbal and writing communication skills in Spanish and English. Good knowledge of Word, Outlook, Excel, and Internet browsers is required. Previous experience working with a GEF-supported project is considered an asset.

8.3. Capacity AssessmentThe Capacity Assessment is not required in Costa Rica.

8.4. Stakeholder Involvement PlanDuring the PPG phase of the project, key stakeholders participated in planning and project design workshops and several smaller focus group sessions and meetings. These participatory forums were the following: a) PPG phase inception workshop and b) project Results Framework Workshop. Additionally, multiple individual meetings and consultations with key national and local stakeholders were held during the PPG phase by the project team, UNDP CO, and staff from the SINAC. Descriptions of the PPG phase workshops are presented below.

Inception Workshop of the PPG Phase. The Inception Workshop was held on November 6, 2012 in the city of San José de Costa Rica. The objectives of this workshop were to: a) help the PPG project team and other stakeholders to understand and take ownership of the project goals and objectives, b) ensure that the project team and other stakeholders have a clear understanding of what the PPG phase seeks to achieve as well as their own roles in successfully carrying out the PPG activities, c) re-build commitment and momentum among key stakeholders (including potential project co-financers) for the PPG phase, and d) validate the PPG Work Plan.

The participants in the PPG Phase Inception Workshop included staff from the MINAE, SINAC, ICE, Research Center for Marine Sciences and Limnology (CIMAR), BIOMARCC, UNDP CO, and the PPG project team.

Project Results Framework Workshop. The Results Framework Workshop was held on March 14-15, 2013 in the city of San José de Costa Rica. The objectives of this workshop were to: a) define the Results Framework, including the revised project outputs, indicators, baseline information, goals, verification mechanisms, and assumptions; b) preliminary definition of the project’s activities for each outcome/output; c) define a preliminary budget for the project, including the co-financing; and d) update the PPG phase Work Plan. The participants in the Project Results Framework Workshop included staff from the SINAC, UNDP CO, and the PPG project team.

In addition, a total of 10 local meetings were held in various locations throughout the country, with the participation of 135 people representing government agencies, the private sector and the civil society, including: Ministries (MINAE, MAG, SENARA, ICT, INA, INCOPESCA); SINAC (Director, Conservation Area Director, PA managers); National Council of Conservation Areas and Regional

Councils of Protected Areas; Municipalities and their Environment Commissions; Community Development Associations; members of NGOs and other civil society organizations, including Osa Conservation, Forever Costa Rica Program, BIOMARCC, and MarViva; the private sector (tourism, agriculture, and aquaculture); local and neighboring communities of IIPW; academia and research institutions (UCR, CIMAR, UNA, CATIE); and PA staff (park rangers from 27 different PAs, including National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and Biological Reserves).

Stakeholder Participation Plan for the Project Implementation PhaseThe formulation of the stakeholder participation plan had the following objectives: a) to clearly identify the basic roles and responsibilities of the main participants in the project, b) to ensure full knowledge of those involved concerning the progress and obstacles in project development and to take advantage of the experience and skills of the participants to enhance project activities, and c) to identify key instances in the project cycle where stakeholder involvement will occur. The ultimate purpose of the stakeholder participation plan will be the long-term sustainability of the project achievements, based on transparency and the effective participation of the key stakeholders.

During the PPG phase, visits were conducted by the PPG project team and SINAC staff to the internationally important protected wetlands that will benefit from the project to involve the local stakeholders early on in the project design process and to identify potential partnerships for project implementation.

Summary of Stakeholder Roles in Project Implementation:Stakeholders Role in Project Implementation

SINAC (National System of Conservation Areas)

SINAC is the project’s Executing Agency and is a fully decentralized government institution of MINAE charged with the administration of all public PAs in the country and with the management of forestry and wildlife both within and outside of PAs.

CONAC (National Council for Conservation Areas)

This is the highest-level decision-making body within SINAC, presided by the Minister of MINAE. CONAC would need to approve any national plans or strategies developed by the proposed project.

Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE)

MINAE is the GEF Focal Point and ruling institution for natural resources in Costa Rica, with the exception of forestry issues, wildlife, and PAs (responsibility of SINAC).

National Wetlands Committee (NWC)

The NWC will provide technical support for the implementation of project activities, including IIPW management, information management, and raising awareness of stakeholders about the ecological and socioeconomic importance of the wetlands, among other topics.

FONAFIFO (National Fund for Forest Financing)

FONAFIFO executes the country’s Payment for Environmental Services Program and will be an important stakeholder in the development of relevant financial mechanisms.

Municipalities Municipalities will be key stakeholders in the development and implementation of protection and control plans and the local management program. The project will provide specific training to a select group of municipalities to help them incorporate consideration of wetlands in the development and implementation of regulatory plans (to manage land use) and in the granting of permits for infrastructure development, with a focus on municipalities located in the areas immediately surrounding the internationally important wetland PAs. Municipalities are only responsible for territorial planning outside of the PAs.

Local communities The project will work closely with communities living within or near Costa Rica’s wetlands of international importance and will jointly develop a local management program with them.

UNDP Costa Rica This is the project’s Implementing Agency (IA) and will be responsible for financial and technical oversight of the project.

Other government institutions

The project will work to build the capacity of other institutions, such as the Costa Rican Institute for Tourism (ICT); Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAG), the National Coastguard; and the Institute of Electricity (ICE).

Universities, research institutions and NGOs

The project will develop partnerships with other organizations to ensure the long-term collection of relevant wetland data, such as with the National University of Costa Rica, research institutions, NGOs, or other organizations in the private sector.

Participation Mechanisms: Three key phases for stakeholders’ participation have been identified for the implementation phase of the project: planning, implementation, and evaluation. Project planning will include annual meetings with key internationally important protected wetlands stakeholders (including members of the SC) during which annual goals will be set for each component of the project. These annual planning meetings will also serve to specify the activities that are to be funded through each co-financing source. Project implementation will take place according to the annual plans that are approved by the SC, which is expected to be formed by the following agencies: SINAC, UNDP CP, and others to be determined. The Project Director may invite other key project stakeholders to participate (e.g., NGOs and community-based organizations) to ensure active involvement/participation and full representation. In addition, key stakeholders will be direct beneficiaries of the project’s activities, such as training and internationally important protected wetlands management. Project evaluation will occur annually with the participation of key internationally important protected wetlands stakeholders at the end of each planning year and previous to defining the annual plan for the following year of project implementation. Also, mid-term and final-term project evaluations will be carried out as part of the project cycle. Due to the independent nature of these evaluations, they will be key moments during the project’s life when stakeholders can express their views, concerns, and assess whether the project’s outcomes are being achieved and if necessary, define the course of correction.

8.5. Tracking ToolThe GEF-5 Tracking Tool for Biodiversity Focal Area (BD-1) related with the project will be included in a separate file.

8.6. Projected carbon benefits of a REDD+ pilot project in the Palo Verde IIPW.

Forest areaDeforestatio

n rate

Projected deforestation

without project

Forest areaDeforestatio

n rate

Projected deforestation with project

Avoided deforestation

% change in emissions

reduction in the project

area

Emissions with project

Credits Buffer

Debits Buffer VCUs

ha % ha/year tCO2-e/year tCO2-e ha % ha/year tCO2-e/year tCO2-e ha tCO2-e/year tCO2-e % tCO2-e/year tCO2-e/year tCO2-e tCO2-e tCO2-e tCO2-e

2013 29,084.00 -3.20% - 29,084.00 - - - - - 0% 0 - 2014 28,153.31 -3.20% -930.69 1,365,009 1,365,009 28,153.31 -3.20% -930.69 1,365,009 1,365,009 - - - 0% - 0 - 2015 27,252.41 -3.20% -900.91 1,321,329 2,686,338 27,252.41 -3.20% -900.91 1,321,329 2,686,338 - - - 0% - 0 - 2016 26,380.33 -3.20% -872.08 1,279,046 3,965,384 26,903.58 -1.50% -348.83 511,619 3,197,956 523.25 -767,428 -767,428 10% 76,743 -690,685 -690,6852017 25,536.16 -3.20% -844.17 1,238,117 5,203,501 26,565.91 -1.50% -337.67 495,247 3,693,203 1,029.75 -742,870 -1,510,298 10% 74,287 -668,583 -1,359,2682018 24,719.00 -3.20% -817.16 1,198,497 6,401,998 26,239.04 -1.50% -326.86 479,399 4,172,602 1,520.04 -719,098 -2,229,396 10% 71,910 -647,188 -2,006,456 802,583 1,203,874 2019 23,927.99 -3.20% -791.01 1,160,145 7,562,143 25,922.64 -1.50% -316.40 464,058 4,636,660 1,994.65 -696,087 -2,925,483 10% 69,609 -626,478 -2,632,9352020 23,162.30 -3.20% -765.70 1,123,020 8,685,164 25,616.36 -1.50% -306.28 449,208 5,085,868 2,454.07 -673,812 -3,599,295 10% 67,381 -606,431 -3,239,366 493,164 739,746 2021 22,421.10 -3.20% -741.2 1,087,084 9,772,247 25,319.89 -1.50% -296.5 434,834 5,520,702 2,898.78 -652,250 -4,251,546 10% 65,225 -587,025 -3,826,3912022 21,703.63 -3.20% -717.5 1,052,297 10,824,545 25,032.90 -1.50% -287.0 420,919 5,941,621 3,329.27 -631,378 -4,882,924 10% 63,138 -568,240 -4,394,632 462,106 693,159 2023 21,009.11 -3.20% -694.5 1,018,624 11,843,168 24,755.09 -1.50% -277.8 407,449 6,349,070 3,745.98 -611,174 -5,494,098 10% 61,117 -550,057 -4,944,6882024 20,336.82 -3.20% -672.3 986,028 12,829,196 24,486.17 -1.50% -268.9 394,411 6,743,481 4,149.35 -591,617 -6,085,715 10% 59,162 -532,455 -5,477,143 433,005 263,678 913,185 2025 19,686.04 -3.20% -650.8 954,475 13,783,671 24,225.86 -1.50% -260.3 381,790 7,125,271 4,539.82 -572,685 -6,658,400 10% 57,268 -515,416 -5,992,5602026 19,056.09 -3.20% -630.0 923,932 14,707,602 23,973.88 -1.50% -252.0 369,573 7,494,844 4,917.79 -554,359 -7,212,759 10% 55,436 -498,923 -6,491,483 405,736 608,604 2027 18,446.29 -3.20% -609.8 894,366 15,601,968 23,729.96 -1.50% -243.9 357,746 7,852,590 5,283.67 -536,619 -7,749,378 10% 53,662 -482,958 -6,974,4402028 17,856.01 -3.20% -590.3 865,746 16,467,714 23,493.85 -1.50% -236.1 346,298 8,198,888 5,637.84 -519,448 -8,268,826 10% 51,945 -467,503 -7,441,943 380,184 570,276 2029 17,284.62 -3.20% -571.4 838,042 17,305,756 23,265.29 -1.50% -228.6 335,217 8,534,105 5,980.67 -502,825 -8,771,651 10% 50,283 -452,543 -7,894,4862030 16,731.51 -3.20% -553.1 811,225 18,116,981 23,044.05 -1.50% -221.2 324,490 8,858,595 6,312.54 -486,735 -9,258,386 10% 48,673 -438,061 -8,332,547 356,242 406,965 941,327 2031 16,196.10 -3.20% -535.4 785,266 18,902,247 22,829.89 -1.50% -214.2 314,106 9,172,701 6,633.78 -471,159 -9,729,545 10% 47,116 -424,043 -8,756,5912032 15,677.83 -3.20% -518.3 760,137 19,662,384 22,622.58 -1.50% -207.3 304,055 9,476,756 6,944.75 -456,082 -10,185,628 10% 45,608 -410,474 -9,167,065 333,807 500,711 2033 15,176.14 -3.20% -501.7 735,813 20,398,197 22,421.90 -1.50% -200.7 294,325 9,771,081 7,245.76 -441,488 -10,627,115 10% 44,149 -397,339 -9,564,4042034 14,690.50 -3.20% -485.6 712,267 21,110,464 22,227.64 -1.50% -194.3 284,907 10,055,988 7,537.14 -427,360 -11,054,475 10% 42,736 -384,624 -9,949,028 312,785 469,178 2035 14,220.41 -3.20% -470.1 689,474 21,799,938 22,039.61 -1.50% -188.0 275,790 10,331,778 7,819.20 -413,685 -11,468,160 10% 41,368 -372,316 -10,321,3442036 13,765.35 -3.20% -455.1 667,411 22,467,349 21,857.58 -1.50% -182.0 266,964 10,598,742 8,092.23 -400,447 -11,868,607 10% 40,045 -360,402 -10,681,746 293,087 496,345 935,976 2037 13,324.86 -3.20% -440.5 646,054 23,113,403 21,681.39 -1.50% -176.2 258,422 10,857,164 8,356.53 -387,632 -12,256,239 10% 38,763 -348,869 -11,030,6152038 12,898.47 -3.20% -426.4 625,380 23,738,783 21,510.83 -1.50% -170.6 250,152 11,107,316 8,612.36 -375,228 -12,631,467 10% 37,523 -337,705 -11,368,320 274,630 411,945 2039 12,485.72 -3.20% -412.8 605,368 24,344,151 21,345.73 -1.50% -165.1 242,147 11,349,463 8,860.01 -363,221 -12,994,688 10% 36,322 -326,899 -11,695,2192040 12,086.17 -3.20% -399.5 585,996 24,930,147 21,185.91 -1.50% -159.8 234,398 11,583,862 9,099.74 -351,598 -13,346,286 10% 35,160 -316,438 -12,011,657 257,335 386,002 2041 11,699.41 -3.20% -386.8 567,244 25,497,392 21,031.21 -1.50% -154.7 226,898 11,810,759 9,331.79 -340,347 -13,686,632 10% 34,035 -306,312 -12,317,9692042 11,325.03 -3.20% -374.4 549,093 26,046,484 20,881.46 -1.50% -149.8 219,637 12,030,396 9,556.42 -329,456 -14,016,088 10% 32,946 -296,510 -12,614,479 241,129 545,651 907,344 2043 10,962.63 -3.20% -362.4 531,522 26,578,006 20,736.50 -1.50% -145.0 212,609 12,243,005 9,773.86 -318,913 -14,335,001 10% 31,891 -287,022 -12,901,5012044 10,611.83 -3.20% -350.8 514,513 27,092,519 20,596.17 -1.50% -140.3 205,805 12,448,810 9,984.35 -308,708 -14,643,708 10% 30,871 -277,837 -13,179,338 225,943 338,915 2045 10,272.25 -3.20% -339.6 498,048 27,590,567 20,460.34 -1.50% -135.8 199,219 12,648,030 10,188.09 -298,829 -14,942,538 10% 29,883 -268,946 -13,448,284

9,620,242

Year

Baseline Scenario with project Project benefits Leaks Carbon credits

Projected emissions without project

Projected emissions with project

Projected emission reduction with project

With project

Net emissions reduction