Project Number GFL/ 2328–2713-4A86 (PMS: GF/1030-09-03 ... Eval… · MTIASIC / Mid-Term Review...

MTIASIC / Mid-Term Review of 223

Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the

Insular Caribbean

Project Number GFL/ 2328–2713-4A86 (PMS: GF/1030-09-03)

MID-TERM EVALUATION

1st September – 19th December 2011

FINAL


Table of Contents Acknowledgements 3 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 4 Executive Summary 5 1.Introduction and Background 18 1.1 Project development 18

1.2 Project description 18 2. Scope, objective and methods of evaluation 19

2.1 Scope of Evaluation 19 2.2 Methodology 21 2.3 Timing and arrangements 22

3. Project Performance and Impact 23 A. Attainment of objectives and planned results 36

1. Effectiveness 36 2. Relevance 38 3. Efficiency 39

B. Sustainability 39 1. Financial resources 40 2. Socio-political 41 3. Institutional framework and governance 41

4. Environmental 42 C. Project Outputs and activities 43

1. Regional Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan 43 2. CIASNET.org 44 3. Lionfish projects 45 4. Other pilot projects 45 5. Trinidad & Tobago Marine IAS Public Awareness Campaign 46

D. Catalytic role and replication 48 E. Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems 48

1. M&E design 48 2. M&E plan implementation 49 3. Budgeting and funding for M&E activities 49

F. Preparation and Readiness 50 G. Country ownership/driveness 51 H. Stakeholder participation/public awareness 52 I. Financial Planning 57 J. Implementation approach 58 K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping 60

4. Lessons Learned 60 A. Administration 60 B. Capacity Building/Communication 61

C. Pilot Projects 62 D. Sustainability 62

5. Recommendations 62 6. Evaluator’s ratings of the project and summary comments 70 7. Annexes 74

Annex 1: Evaluation Terms of Reference 74 Annex 2: List of interviewees, and Evaluation timeline 95 Annex 3: A list of documents reviewed / consulted 97 Annex 4: Co-financing and Leveraged Resources (data as of 30/6/2011, supplied by CABI) 101

Annex 5: Sources of project co-financing (cash and in-kind contributions) 102 Annex 6: Sustainable Conservation of Mitigating the Threats Project actual

reported expenditure by area 106 Annex 7. Short Profile of the Evaluator 123 Annex 8: Pilot project assessment 124 Annex 9: Responses to questionnaire documenting project accomplishments, hopes,

challenges, and opportunities 177 Annex 10: National comments on project achievements 192


Acknowledgements

The author of the report – Dr. Jamie K. Reaser - would especially like to thank the following individuals for their assistance in arranging visits in the Caribbean and/or the collection/transmission of information on which the Evaluation is based: Lakeshia Anderson, Nelsa English-Johnson, Bob Ramnanan, Velda Ferguson-Dewsbury, Ulrike Krause, and Deneise Sham Ku. The Evaluator would also like to thank the UNEP-DGEF Task Manager, Kristin McLaughlin, for the information she provided and her thoughtful attention to Evaluation progress. The project teams are to be commended for their dedication, enthusiasm, and courage to take on work that has little precedent in the region. Their contributions form the foundation on which highly effective national and regional IAS programmes can be built. May the Mid-term Evaluation assist in this regard.


List of Abbreviations and Acronyms BEST – Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology Commission BNT – Bahamas National Trust BREEF - Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation CARICOM – Caribbean Community CBD – Convention on Biological Diversity CARDI – Caribbean Agricultural Research and Development Initiative CEPF – Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund CHM – Clearing-house Mechanism CIASNET – Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Network CISWG – Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group COPE – Council of Presidents of the Environment Ct – Caulerpa taxifolia DOC-NZ – Department of Conservation, New Zealand EA – Executing Agency EMA – Environment Management Authority, Trinidad & Tobago GBIF – Global Biodiversity Information Facility GEF – Global Environment Facility GISIN – Global Invasive Species Information Network GISP – Global Invasive Species Programme GLISPA – Global Island Partnership GOs – Governmental Organisations IAS – Invasive Alien Species IABIN – Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network IGO – Intergovernmental Organisation IICA – Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture IM – Implementing Agency IMA – Institute of Marine Affairs, Trinidad & Tobago IMO – International Maritime Organisation IPM – Integrated Pest Management IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature MALFF – Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry & Fisheries, Saint Lucia MFPLMA – Ministry of Food Production, Land & Marine Affairs, Trinidad & Tobago MtR – Mid-term Review Mr – Moniliophthora roreri (frosty pod rot) NBSAP – National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NEPA – National Environment and Planning Agency, Jamaica NGOs – Non-governmental Organisations NISC – US National Invasive Species Council NISSAP – National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan NOAA – US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organisation NOBANIS – European Network on Invasive Alien Species PIR – Project Implementation Report Pv – Perna viridis (green mussel) PSEPA – Pointe Sables Environmental Protected Area SBSTTA – Subsidiary Body on Science, Technology, and Technological Advice, under the CBD SIDS – Small Island Developing States SL – Saint Lucia SLAPS – Saint Lucia Animal Protection Society SLASPA – Saint Lucia Air & Sea Ports Authority SLNT/OPAAL = Saint Lucia National Trust/OECS Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods Project SPAW – Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife Protocol SPS – Sanitary and Phytosanitary TNC – The Nature Conservancy ToR – Terms of Reference UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme USDA – United States Department of Agriculture UWI – University of the West Indies


1. Executive Summary Project execution The Mitigating the Treats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean project (Project Number: GFL/ 2328–2713-4A86) was approved by GEF in December 2008, and began implementation in January 2009. The Mid-term Review was originally scheduled for January 2011, but did not commence until September. UNEP acted as the Implementing Agency (IA) and CABI, based in Trinidad, as the main Executing Agency (EA) for the project, with co-executors in each of the five target countries – The Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission, Ministry of Health and Environment in The Bahamas; Secretaria del Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Secraria del Estado de Agricultura, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) in the Dominican Republic; Ministry of Land and Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, National Environment and Planning Agency in Jamaica; Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry & Fisheries in collaboration with Ministry of Physical Development, Saint Lucia; and Environmental Management Agency, Ministry of Food Production, Land & Marine Affairs, Institute of Marine Affairs, Council of Presidents of the Environment (COPE), and the Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods (Sustrust) in Trinidad and Tobago. According to the Project Funds Manager, the project received US$ 1,312,421 as of 30 September, 2011 from the GEF Trust Fund (includes a PDF-A grant of US$200,00) and raised US$682,622 of in-kind financing, US$447,533 of cash co-financing and US$369,346 of leveraged co-financing, giving a total of US$1,499,501 in co-financing as of 30 June 2011. The total project cost is US$7,116,616,

Project design The project’s goal (Development Objective) is stated as ‘Globally significant ecosystems, species and genetic

diversity preserved in the Caribbean region through reduction of risk from invasive alien species.’ There are six indicators/targets for achievement of this goal:

1. Development of National Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Strategies 2. Establishment of Caribbean-Wide Cooperation and Strategy 3. Knowledge Generation, Management and Dissemination 4. Prevention of New IAS Introductions in Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine Systems 5. Early Detection, Rapid Response and Control of IAS 6. Project Management

The project has seven Expected Outcomes:

1. Increased national capacity to address potential risks posed to biodiversity of global significant from IAS.

2. Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posted to biodiversity of global significant from IAS. 3. Access to data and Best Practices established. Public awareness of IAS strengthened. 4. Increased prevention of new IAS introductions impacting global biodiversity. 5. Increased eradication and/or improved control management of IAS impacting global biodiversity. 6. National and regional coordination; monitoring and evaluation. 7. Outcome evaluation

Every project needs to be evaluated in accordance with its particular context. The following points should be taken into consideration in the course of evaluating this project and implementing the Reviewer’s recommendations:

- The IAS issue has thus far not become a high priority in the Caribbean region.

- Although the agriculture sector has actively been addressing “pests and diseases” in the region for decades, they have only recently begun to address the IAS issue in a broader context. A few inter-governmental and non-governmental environmental organisations (IGOs and NGOs) have worked on the IAS issue in the region [e.g., The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Island Conservation (IC)]. However, their efforts have not been particularly well-resourced and/or consistent over the last couple of decades.


- Baseline data on biodiversity in the Caribbean is relatively poor, making both assessments of alien species impact and project progress very difficult to measure.

- Because the introduction of alien species into the region has occurred extensively for more than a

century, it can be difficult to ascertain which species are native vs. alien, as well as how “natural communities” should appear and function.

- The capacity to address the IAS issue in the region has been relatively low from political, financial, technical, and logistical perspectives.

- Caribbean countries vary in culture, language, and governance structure. According to interviewees,

people in the Caribbean tend to be more reactive than proactive (i.e. more motivated away from problems than toward solutions) and, in general, have a preference for communicating through sound and image rather than written word

- The total fund allocation for this project is meagre for a project of this magnitude, and comparable to

grants some single countries have received for work on IAS. Evaluation of the project is further challenged by some elements of initial design, for example: There is no quantified baseline; the terms “mitigate,” “threat,” and “globally significant/significance” have not been defined for this specific project; the linkages between the project objective and the associated indicators/expected outcomes are not readily apparent in biological terms; indicators to measure actual changes in human behaviour that would minimize the risk of biological invasion and IAS impact over the long-term have not been included; and little emphasis was placed on measures to ensure sustainability of project results and processes. Furthermore, it appears that the pilot projects were not selected based on a set of “best practice” criteria carefully defined for the project context (budget, information base, technical capacity, and logistics); and either there was inadequate technical advice provided during the project planning phase or the technical advice was not well incorporated in some cases.

Project implementation Despite the particular challenges inherent to working in the region (see above), inadequacy in some elements of the project design and proposal review process, and ongoing complications such as staff turnover and delayed equipment procurement, the project has achieved substantial results and impact: awareness of the IAS issue and the capacity to address it have been raised, numerous products (some of very high quality) have been produced, a wide range of stakeholders have been engaged, and strategies and structures have been put in place to coordinate work on IAS at the national and regional levels. Overall, the Mid-term Targets have been largely achieved in a Moderately Satisfactory to Satisfactory manner, although some aspects of the original project design have had to be modified substantially (one pilot project discontinued) and some activities remain behind schedule due to logistical constraints. Examples of notable project successes include: ‘Final draft’ of a regional IAS strategy; IAS regional steering committee and national-level committees/working groups; employment of national IAS coordinators; concrete achievements on the lionfish projects that serve to raise awareness of the IAS issue in general and are transferable to all areas invaded or likely to be invaded by lionfish; extensive outreach on IAS through the popular media and peer-reviewed literature; recruitment and training of technical project personnel; leveraging of resources (financial and technical) from a variety of sources within and outside the region; and lessons have been learned about project design and implementation procedures that will likely prove to be invaluable well beyond the scope and term of this project. (See Annex 9 for a list of accomplishments identified by project interviewees). According to interviewees, there is considerable gratitude for CABI’s willingness to serve as regional EA for this project. The amount of effort required to manage a project of this magnitude on a relatively small budget is recognised by the project participants and the Reviewer. The regional project team, National Coordinators, and pilot project leads are clearly dedicated to this project and investing considerable time and effort in its execution. Interviewees and this Reviewer do see room for improvement. For example, greater efforts need to be made to proactively garner political will and legislative/policy action to address the IAS issue; funding and financial reporting procedures need to be clarified and streamlined as they have contributed to substantial angst and delay in this project; project partners (especially those involved in the pilot projects) require better communication and engagement (communication seems to be working well from the bottom up but not as well from the top down or horizontally); some pilot projects need to be reviewed and further redefined in order to identify/meet realistic


measures of success due to logistical complications; the CIASNET.org website would benefit from a near-term evaluation and revision process so as to make it more attractive and user-friendly; there is considerable room and need to bring more partners/stakeholders to the table who can provide technical assistance at all levels of the project; and training of relevant project participants in economic analysis, risk analysis, and social marketing/pride campaign strategies is warranted. (See Annex 9 for a list of challenges identified by project interviewees). From the perspective of the Reviewer and several interviewees who have substantial experience working with IAS, there are a number of targets that were not included in the original project design that it will be necessary for the project to achieve if it is going to “preserve globally significant ecosystems, species and genetic diversity in the Caribbean region” in both the short- and long-term. The points below are discussed further in the Recommendations. As a minimum, they should be carefully considered when developing regional and national IAS strategies and action plans under the current project:

- Regional and national-level Action Plans to complement the IAS Strategies. The Action Plans should provide measurable goals, timelines, assignments of responsibility, means of accountability, and monitoring/adaptive management processes. [Note, although the existing Regional Strategy discussed later in this document includes an “action plan,” it is not likely to provide the direction necessary to implementers and should be replaced with a more business-oriented model containing the elements listed above]

- Strong prevention capacities. Although prevention is the most cost-effective strategy for addressing IAS, the “Mitigating the Threats” project places relatively little emphasis on prevention, and instead has dedicated a substantial portion of its pilot project resources to very logistically challenging control/eradication efforts that are (with some exception) unlikely to demonstrate substantial quantitative success by the closure of the project. In order to prevent new invasions from entering the participant countries and spreading through the region, prevention infrastructure needs to be built. This includes such things as: assessing known and potential IAS in the countries/region; identifying and ranking invasion pathways and identifying associated stakeholders; building a system of inter-operable national databases on IAS; expanding and training Customs staff; hiring and training appropriate staff in risk analysis procedures; creating effective social marketing campaigns directed at key stakeholders/pathways; enacting and enforcing prevention-based legislation and policy (including voluntary codes of conduct). Some steps are being made by the countries toward prevention, but not yet in a sufficiently proactive, comprehensive, and strategic manner.

- Sustainability plans that the teams begin to develop and implement immediately. A section on sustainability is included in the Product Document, but it is conceptual rather than strategic. It is imperative that project participants begin to determine what they want to achieve as lasting outcomes of the project (e.g., CIASNET.org as a IAS portal for the region, IAS National Coordinators and permanent positions with enough stature to be influential, standing regional and national IAS committees that are multi-sector and multi-stakeholder) and start seeking the financial and technical resources necessary to not only maintain a consistent focus, but also garner an even greater level of visibility and political will within the governments.

- Strategic plan for transferring lessons learned, products, and capacities throughout the region. The

participating countries do not in themselves represent “the Caribbean region.” If the Project Objective is to be met, then project participants need to acquire the vision and means to actively influence the entire Caribbean region.

Several project partners and project staff identified the need for better communication and engagement of key stakeholders. Current project partners (particularly those working on activities associated with the pilot projects) reported that they are largely uninformed about the overall project vision and activities. A few voiced considerable frustration in this regard and also felt that their professional capacities were being underutilized and/or disregarded. There is a clear need for project leadership to better inform all project participants and to better assess and utilize the capacities of those individuals who are eager to contribute. Key gaps in stakeholder engagement or under engagement of stakeholder groups that were identified include: university faculty and students (in region and abroad); pet and tourism industries; experts with substantial experience in economic analysis and modelling, risk analysis, social marketing/pride campaigns (RARE was given as a specific example), and vertebrate species eradication; NGOs with technical and programme management expertise that could assist with sustainability. The Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) was identified as a potential


source for small grants. See Annex 9 for a list of opportunities/resources that interviewees believe the project has not yet employed to its advantage. A desire for better project administration was expressed at all levels of the project. Points made include the need for:

- Greater proactive promotion of the project and greater networking among interested parties.

- Clarity and consistency in financial management and reporting, and granting mechanism established.

- Better clarity in roles of project partners, including obligations already laid out in written agreements.

- Increased flexibility and capacity support (technical and logistical) from regional project management.

- Better access to best practices and other information to inform project planning/decision making

(presumably CIASNET.org is intended to help in this regard).

- Either more support staff and/or project-dedicated positions, or a reduction in project

demands/objectives so as to be consistent with current capacities (i.e. people are overloaded and this is

translating into staff burnout, turnover, and/or reduction in interest in the project).

See Annex 9 for lists of past and anticipated challenges observed by project participants. It should be noted that National Coordinators in Saint Lucia and Jamaica received rave reviews from several members of their project teams – colleagues made an explicit point of letting the Reviewer know how pleased they are with the performance of these individuals. National and Regional Coordinators also reported that UNEP Task Manager Kristin McLaughlin’s active engagement in project direction has been of substantial value and well received. Several interviewees at the national level expressed frustration that input from the regional level has typically more critical than empowering in its delivery. Overall, the Reviewer considers the original project plan (especially the choice of logistically challenging pilot projects and focus on eradication/control rather than prevention) not particularly well conceived given the limited time and resources available. Nevertheless, the Reviewer also recognizes the lessons are being learned through the less-than-ideal project design and that several substantial accomplishments have already been made (see previous remarks on accomplishments and a list in Annex 9).

Key lessons identified by project participants Although the project has only approached mid-term, the interviewees have identified numerous lessons learned/observations. These are organized below and captured in Annex 9. Points made by several respondents are indicated with a “*” and placed at the top of the lists. Otherwise, they are in no particular order.

Administration

- *Needed better project concept planning, scheduling and execution in the project formulation phase.

- * It takes considerable time, money, logistical support and technical expertise to execute a project of

this nature. The support needs were not well-anticipated. Co-financing issues must be much better

understood before a project is initiated.

- *A gap exists between project concept and project implementation. A project needs to have flexibility

to adjust to changing circumstances (e.g., staff, knowledge base, policies). Need to consider that the

people involved in project planning may not be “implementers.”

- *Need far greater, proactive promotion of the project and greater networking among interested parties.

- *People are spread too thin. The project needed to anticipate more resources for people dedicated just to

the project.

- *Need for more proactive and positive support by CABI in project activities, and greater direct

involvement by CABI with project implementation agencies.

- *To be successful in the near and long-term, the project must have a dedicated project team/staff with

clear, focused objectives. Champions are key to project and regional network success. Champions are


not always the most technically sophisticated individuals – they are people who are highly influential.

Progress is highly dependent of the drive and enthusiasm of a few key individuals. Need champions at

all levels and across stakeholder groups.

- *Need more regional meetings in which everyone can get together who is interested in participating –

not just administrators. The people doing the “on the ground” work need far more opportunities to be

informed about/engaged in the project as a whole.

- *Doing the regional strategy first has helped to gain overall project visibility and buy in from high

levels in the government.

- Local partnerships are vital to project success and local partners (individuals and institutions) should be

identified, encouraged, and promoted. They have an important role in project sustainability. The most

successful work effectively engages university and NGO experts.

- When you are working with organizations that have limited administrative flexibility, you can’t

(shouldn’t) expect them to be able to work at the same rate as more flexible entities.

- The challenges created by the language/cultural differences throughout the region should not be

underestimated.

- A collaborative approach is needed for project management and information sharing.

- There has been difficulty in convincing funders to put major money into the project.

- Reporting needs to be timely and is necessary to get the work to broader audiences.

- It is very important to clarify partnership arrangements, especially for written agreements.

- Need a project advocate at the highest levels of government.

- The project needs to take small steps that show measurable benefits and expand from there.

- It is important to be proactive when addressing IAS.

- More money is needed in the project budget to attract really good consultants.

- Transparency in project participation is very important. It helps get people on board.

- Broad, inclusive working groups help with ensuring overall interest and representation in the project,

but smaller, technically-savvy, teams are needed to oversee project implementation.

- Linkages among Ministries/agencies are critically important. Cross-cutting working groups help, but

there needs to be proactive relationship building taking place continually.

- Be realistic about personal/agency limitations. Projects need to be scaled to context (capacity) and

responsibilities delegated appropriately so that goals/objectives can be achieved.

Capacity Building/Communication

- *Whatever is generated from this GEF project needs to be shared throughout the region.

- Work on pests and diseases needs to be seen as a subset of the IAS umbrella.

- Need to be careful not to communicate conflicting messages to stakeholders.

- It is useful to break the issue down to terrestrial, freshwater, and marine components. It allows for more

targeted action and recommendations.

- A consultative process needs to happen frequently – bringing groups together to share ideas and build

capacity. Public consultation processes are more effective at building capacity than emails and reports.

- CABI and other technical groups need to be more helpful “on-the-ground.”

- Public education/outreach programmes need to be launched early in a project in order to build

understanding and capacity for all of the other project components.

- The people doing education/outreach need to have training/expertise in it. All too often it is done by

people who do not know how to effectively education the diverse public and motivate a change in

behaviours.

- Build alliances via attending various international and regional fora – provides benefits for technical

and financial support.

- Build national capacity via training in scientific and technical issues.

- International partners are important for technical support of the project and general capacity building.

- The co-finance reporting distracts from implementation. However, capacity-building of a business-like

approach to project management could help alleviate this problem.

- Be more selective about professional development for temporary staff. Invest in people with long-term

potential.


Pilot Projects

- *The pilot projects have the potential to push broader programmes and organisations. They can also

create opportunities for networking, information exchange, and collaboration.

- *Stakeholders are often unaware of the IAS and thus not aware of how than can contribute to the issue

and/or be impacted by it. Education can go a long way.

- *Need better focus in the projects of what can be practically achieved. This should be a priority.

- *Contingency plans needed to be developed for the pilot projects early on.

- There is a need for far better feasibility studies and baseline information to inform the projects and

general decision making.

- Ensure that all the necessary information is collected about a site before going out to sample.

- Be prepared for any scenario – things don’t always go as planned. Project components may take longer

than anticipated.

- Top down approaches to eradication won’t work. The values of local people need to be carefully

considered and technical options presented. There needs to be a balance achieved in terms of public

acceptability to the approach, cost-effectiveness, and professional reputation.

- You need to “throw everything at it” when it comes to eradication/controlling an IAS.

- Multi-stakeholder partnerships serve to advance project objectives. Consult with as many stakeholders

as possible. They often have information than can save you time and money. Try to maintain a good

working relationship with stakeholders who have an interest in the project. Need to be very patient

when working with stakeholders and have the flexibility to explain things in terms they will understand.

- Hotels have proven to be good partners in the lionfish project. (Jamaica)

- Lionfish abundances seem to be lower than expected at some sites (near shore and some reef sites); it

has been suggested that the team conduct only monitoring activities at these sites instead of lionfish

removals. (Bahamas)

Sustainability

- *Sustainability planning needs far greater emphasis and immediate attention.

- Long-term support for any project needs to be considered early in the project and be included in the

strategic planning well before project closure.

Summary of main recommendations to strengthen project outcomes and impacts Recommendations to further strengthen the project’s outcomes and future projects are listed below. The Reviewer would like to stress that these are recommendations, not directives. It is not the Reviewer’s role to set an agenda for the project. It is up to the project participants to decide if these recommendations are of value to them in meeting their project goals. The project participants will also need to decide how to prioritize any recommendations they adopt in terms of timing, effort, and financial investment. Some countries may already be making strides toward achieving these recommendations, while other countries may feel that their focus is better directed toward other activities. Recommendations aimed at regional action will be most effectively achieved with the full support of all of the participating countries. According to interviewees, existing project funds are being spent behind projected rates. In some cases this is due to changes in project direction. In other instances the reasons for lack of fund allocation are not readily apparent. The Reviewer recommends that the status of allocated/unspent monies be assessed as soon as possible and, as appropriate, available funds applied towards recommendations or other priority activities in order to ensure that they are efficiently used during the term of this project. FOR PROJECT PARTICIPANTS IMMEDIATE ACTION

1. Although the Reviewer recognises that considerable work has gone into the Regional Strategy and commends those who have been actively involved, the Reviewer finds that further work is warranted. The document needs to be professionally edited by individuals with both expertise in strategic planning


and approaches to IAS prevention/management at regional and national levels. Ideally the final regional strategy will establish a compelling vision and practical steps to achieving it for more than a four year period; a decade is more appropriate for a regional strategy, assuming it has mechanisms for monitoring and adaptive management built in. Given the volume of lessons that will undoubtedly be learned through implementation of the GEF project, the Reviewer recommends that the draft Regional

Strategy be a “living document” over the next two years and that it does not become final until it has received input and buy-in from a large percentage of the countries in the region.

2. Effective Action Plans need to be developed to complement the IAS strategies at regional and national levels. Although the existing Regional Strategy includes an “action plan” (actually two different ones), it is not likely to provide the direction necessary to implementers and should be replaced with a more business-oriented model. Effective action plans provide measurable goals, resource assessments, timelines, assignments of responsibility, means of accountability, and monitoring/adaptive management processes. These action plans should incorporate sustainability plans for key elements of the GEF project.

3. The CIASNET.org site has the potential to be one of the gems of the GEF project and one of the most important project legacies. Unfortunately, interviewees expressed considerable disappointment in the appearance, functionality, and overall administration of the website. The Reviewer concurs that that website revision is highly desirable in the near term, and therefore recommends that a project task group be established to collaborate with a team of individuals who have expertise in social marketing, website design, and communication psychology to improve the website.

4. The Reviewer agrees with interviewees that the Trinidad & Tobago Aquatic IAS Public Awareness campaign would benefit from a more targeted approach and the input (if not leadership) of individuals/organisations with specific expertise in social marketing and pride campaign development/implementation. At the moment the “campaign” is a loosely knit collection of somewhat random activities that are not well integrated internally or with other project components. Numerous stakeholders are listed in the project document, yet the activities are not clearly linked to messaging and message delivery methods that are particularly impactful for these stakeholders groups. Measures of success will be difficult to obtain because baseline data is poor to non-existent. Changing human behaviour is a long-term process that requires sustained messaging and creative/evolving delivery over years, even decades. The time period allotted for this work is insufficient.

The Reviewer recommends that: a) either the team work with groups such as RARE and PCI-Media Impact to develop a more strategically focused campaign that targets only one or two key stakeholder groups and shows strong potential for sustainability, or b) the project does not proceed and the resources that would be allocated to it are invested in other existing projects that are already having an impact and for which sustainability is likely to be achievable.

5. Before long-term sustainability can be secured (discussed below), immediate action needs to be taken to more appropriately distribute workloads (more staff, wider delegation of responsibilities, and/or adjustments to deliverables and timelines) and build sufficient staff technical capacity (especially for the pilot projects). A. In cooperation with the Task Manager, a focused review of project staff needs and concerns should

be conducted, and measures identified and implemented that address issues in a timely and constructive manner.

B. Capacity building needs identified by several project participants in multiple countries include:

- IAS economic analysis, including cost-benefit analysis, impact analysis, and projection modelling for species and pathways. Ideally this would be coupled with training in climate matching and ecological niche modelling.

- Social marketing/pride campaign development and implementation. These capacities would

help the public awareness/education initiatives more from merely providing information/knowledge to actually influencing human behaviour in a manner that substantially reduces the risk of IAS introduction and impact over the long-term.


- Risk analysis. Risk analysis is one of the most important tools in the prevention framework. Capacity building in risk analysis has been identified as a priority by the CBD and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standard setting bodies, among others. The project team should look to these fora for guidance and support (grants, tools, training, etc).

Ideally, training courses should be held for project participants and other interested parties that provide substantial technical capacity building on these topics. During the course of the interviewees, staff at UWI (Dr. Govind Seepersad) expressed an interest in hosting a training course on IAS economic analysis. For social marketing, the Reviewer suggests partnering with RARE and PCI-Media Impact. For risk analysis training and tool development, the Reviewer suggests working with Gordon H. Copp of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the UK. The Reviewer is also willing to assist with these courses from a coordination, training, and fundraising perspective.

6. Project participants should consider presenting a side-event on the project at the 16th meeting of CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Science, Technology, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in Montreal, Canada in late April/early Mary 2012. This meeting will have a focus on islands. This meeting also presents an ideal opportunity for project leads to inform policy makers at the Ministerial level about the project and its accomplishments. The Reviewer recommends that each country identify at least one Ministerial level action to be taken before and reported on as SBSTTA 16. There is also the likelihood that the CBD will hold a meetings for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) on IAS in March of 2012. The project team should be poised to take full advantage of this meeting to network, share lessons learned, and analyse the work of other countries on IAS.

7. Most of the challenges the pilot projects have been facing are already well recognised by the project teams. Additional comments are provided by the Reviewer in Annex 8. The Reviewer recommends that the project teams review these comments and make adjustments as appropriate. At the national and regional level, coordinators should make the explicit, immediate effort to reach out to pilot project leadership and evaluate their progress, concerns, and needs to overcome any perceived challenges. Substantial concern/needs should be addressed at the IPSC meeting in January 2012 and through follow up action as warranted.

ACTION OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT

1. The CBD is in the process of drafting toolkits to guide the development and implementation of National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plan (NISSAPs). The toolkits will be complemented with NISSAP training courses. These are scheduled to become available in 2012. Also in early 2012, the CBD plans to coordinate a workshop for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to exchange information on progress toward establishment of NISSAPs and the IAS component of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). CBD/SBSTTA 16 will have a focus on islands and provides an ideal opportunity for project leads to raise awareness of the project with high level officials, encourage one or more highly visible actions to be taken by policy makers in advance of SBSTTA, and hold a side event that serves to promote the project and announce the recent actions by the participating governments. Project partners should make plans to take full advantage of the toolkits, training courses, SIDS workshop, and SBSTTA 16 agenda. If funds permit, the Reviewer recommends that the project partners offer to host a CBD-organized NISSAP training course in the region. [Note: Although not yet confirmed, there is a strong possibility that the CBD will also be developing toolkits and training courses focused on the pet trade pathway in 2012. As this is a topic of interest to multiple countries participating in the GEF project, the CBD’s work in this area should be closely monitored and project leads poised to engage as opportunities are identified].

2. A section on sustainability is included in the Product Document, but it is conceptual rather than

strategic. Although the project is at mid-term, the participants need to begin to collectively determine what they want to achieve as lasting outcomes of the project, chart a specific plan of action, and begin seeking the financial and technical resources necessary to not only maintain a consistent focus, but also garner an even greater level of visibility and political will within the governments. Ideally sustainability plans will become a component of the Regional Strategy and NISSAPs (see above). The Reviewer recommends including the following elements, as a minimum, in sustainability planning1:

1 The Reviewer wants to emphasise that this list is a suggestion for concepts/actions to be included in

sustainability plans that have a vision that extends beyond the “Mitigating the Threats” project. The Reviewer


- Establishing CIASNET.org as an attractive, highly-effective IAS portal for the region.

- Finalizing the regional and national IAS strategies and coupling them with fully operational action

plans. These should be submitted to the CIASNET.org portal and CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CBD IAS Portal) for access by other interested parties.

- Establishing/improving national IAS databases using standards, formats, and protocols that will

enable them to be interoperable on regional and global levels. These should be accessible through CIASNET.org and data share with the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and new structures/opportunities to be created by the recently developed Joint Programme of Work on IAS Information under the CBD.

- Securing multi-sector and cross-agency IAS committees/working groups at the national level that

are sanctioned by the appropriate ministries (written into legislation where feasible), include participants who are well positioned to influence policy and provide technical expertise on IAS and programme management, and have as their explicit mission the implementation of IAS strategies and action plans.

- Ensuring that each government creates a permanent IAS National Coordinator position that is

placed in an appropriate ministry at a level high enough to have access to decision makers and direct programme/project implementation.

- Investing in the prevention infrastructure by securing the databases mentioned above, building

Customs and police officer training and expanding the inspection/enforcement services, providing identification tools to the inspection/enforcement services, demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of prevention through economic analyses, institutionalising risk analysis capacities, establishing prevention measures in law and policy (including codes of conduct), and establishing early detection/rapid response programmes for high risk IAS. The project teams are strongly encouraged to begin national and regional work on the tourism and pet trade pathways before the project ends and to make this a priority for continued worked throughout the broader Caribbean region.

- Ensuring the long-term implementation of public awareness and education campaigns that are

developed and lead by proactive, technically qualified individuals with expertise in social marketing and pride campaigns.

- Incorporating measures, as appropriate, into law and policy that allow for the eradication and

control of IAS on public and private lands, and that establish both incentives for IAS prevention/mitigation and severe penalties for violating IAS laws/regulations.

- Working with aptly qualified technical advisory teams to determine the appropriate future direction

for the pilot projects and garnering support for future work plans. The future work plans should include explicit feedback loops for informing science-based decisions by policy makers.

3. Although prevention is the most cost-effective strategy for addressing IAS, the “Mitigating the Threats”

project places relatively little emphasis on prevention, and instead has dedicated a substantial portion of its pilot project resources to very logistically challenging control/eradication efforts that are (with some exception) unlikely to demonstrate substantial quantitative success by the closure of the project. In order to prevent new invasions from entering the participant countries and spreading through the region, prevention infrastructure needs to be built. This includes such things as: assessing known and potential IAS in the countries/region; identifying and ranking invasion pathways and identifying associated stakeholders; building a system of inter-operable national databases on IAS; expanding and training Customs staff; hiring and training appropriate staff in risk analysis procedures; creating effective social marketing campaigns directed at key stakeholders/pathways; enacting and enforcing prevention-based legislation and policy (including voluntary codes of conduct). Some concerned steps are being made by

does not envision that all of these items would be fully accomplished prior to the close of the current project. If a follow up GEF project grant is desired, the Reviewer recommends that these items be considered by the grant writers.


the countries toward prevention, but not yet in a sufficiently proactive, comprehensive, and strategic manner. A. The Reviewer recommends that the project participants develop a comprehensive prevention

strategy vision/check list for each country and use it to analyse the current capacities and needs. This strategic vision and analysis should be built into regional and national IAS strategies and action plans. Steps for meeting some of these needs are addressed in other recommendations. The Reviewer recommends that project leads learn from the prevention capacities identified and being developed in other regions, especially the Pacific (e.g., http://www.pacificinvasivesinitiative.org/pii/index.html). The European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS) is a good example of efforts to create database interoperability/portal on a regional level (http://www.nobanis.org/).

B. Within the more comprehensive vision for IAS prevention, three pathways of intentional and unintentional introduction need to strategically addressed at the regional and national levels: horticulture, tourism, and the pet/animal trade. As a minimum, a focus on these pathways should be included in regional and national IAS strategies and action plans. If the regional project team or individual country teams wish to accomplish more in this area over the next two years, clear opportunities exist for collaboration and partnership leveraging. For example, the CBD is currently undertaking work on the pet trade pathway and the project leads should contact Dr. Junko Shimura of the Secretariat ([email protected]) to express their interest in participating in relevant activities (e.g., sharing case studies, hosting training courses). Codes of conduct on horticulture have been developed by several different groups (e.g., see overview article: http://reach.ucdavis.edu/downloads/Burt_etal_2007_Biol_Inv.pdf). Sufficient expertise and examples exist such that the region could host a workshop focused on the horticulture pathway and approaches to address it. Most work with IAS and the tourism sector is from the agriculture perspective. A great opportunity exists for the region to establish leadership on approaches to working with the tourism industry and engaging the World Tourism Organisation on IAS issues. RARE and the CBD may be willing to collaborate in these efforts. [Note: The Reviewer also recognizes the importance of ballast water and hull fouling pathways and encourages the participating countries to work on these through International Maritime Organisation (IMO)]. The Reviewer is willing to help identify individuals and specific opportunities to help build the vision and capacity for more effective approaches to prevention in the Caribbean.

4. There is a clear need for project leadership to better inform all project participants and to better assess

and utilize the capacities of those individuals who are eager to contribute. Key gaps in stakeholder engagement or under engagement of stakeholder groups that were identified include: university faculty and students (in region and abroad); pet and tourism industries; experts with substantial experience in economic analysis and modelling, risk analysis, social marketing/pride campaigns (RARE was given as a specific example), and vertebrate species eradication; NGOs with technical and programme management expertise that could assist with sustainability; and potential funders. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has been suggested as a resourcing option, through the grants tend to be small.

A. The Reviewer feels that the project is underutilizing the technical expertise available to the project

both internally and externally to monitor progress and achieve adaptive management in a timely manner. The Reviewer recommends holding “project conferences” at least twice a year to report on and evaluate accomplishments from a technical perspective (outside technical experts could be invited and asked to fill out evaluation forms). Such “conferences” would also assist with internal project networking and capacity building dialogue. It would also be valuable to include pilot project leads and more people internal to project with substantial technical expertise at IPSC meetings. Meetings on focused topics of interest via Skype every month or every other month would also facilitate networking and the sharing of technical expertise.

B. The Reviewer recommends that the project team conduct a more technical analysis of stakeholders

on a national and regional level. This should primarily seek to identify those people/groups who are:


- Most impacted or potentially impacted by IAS from ecological, economic, and human health perspectives;

- Most likely to be introducing (through entry and site-based introduction) IAS and facilitating

their spread (linked to particularly pathways;

- Best positioned to help institute measures to minimize the spread and impact of IAS.

These could be cross-referenced to particular ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, marine), pathways/sectors, approaches for prevention/eradication/control, and messages/delivery systems. An analysis of this kind would provide useful direction for and reference within IAS strategies and action plans at national and regional levels and identify stakeholders that need to be brought into the project in the near- and long-term.

5. In order to make the project as relevant and catalytic and possible, the project team should begin

drafting and implementing a strategic plan for transferring lessons learned, products, and capacities throughout the region. Lessons learned should be packaged and transmitted through a multi-media approach (e.g., reports, podcasts, training courses, the arts). Particular attention needs to be given to attracting the attention and buy-in of decision makings in the project countries and elsewhere. Without their interest and support, the opportunities for the project to become self-sustaining and serve as a catalyst are not particularly good. A. As a minimum, lessons learned should be shared through the CIASNET.org website and the CBD

Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM)/IAS Portal.

B. The approaches used for eradication of vertebrate IAS are likely to be of particular interest to other islands throughout the world and would ideally be summarized and reported with the help of Island Conservation, the New Zealand Department of Conservation, and/or GLISPA.

C. Project participants are encouraged to continue raising awareness of the project and transmitting

lessons learned as they become available through conferences, workshops, and symposia (at national, regional, and global levels), as well as publishing in popular press and peer-reviewed literature.

D. In addition to the CBD-CHM/IAS Portal, countries will ideally report, as relevant, on the

application of GEF project outputs towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Focal points for the various international organisations listed on pages 45-46 of the Project Document should be identified, kept well-informed about the project, and encouraged to find opportunities to transfer project lessons and outputs into this fora.

6. Climate change is projected to have a substantial impact in the Caribbean through multiple mechanisms.

Most studies indicate that the establishment and spread of IAS will be facilitated by climate change. Some of the pilot project sites and target species are likely to be directly impacted. The Reviewer recommends that project participants begin to familiarize themselves the literature on the projected impacts of climate change in the Caribbean region and the interactions between climate change and IAS. Relevant literature should be made available through the CIASNET.org website and one or more training courses/conferences on the topic of IAS and climate change in the Caribbean are strongly encouraged. The regional and national IAS strategies and action plans need to carefully consider the role of climate change in IAS prevention, control, and eradication.

FOR UNEP IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE REGIONAL PROJECT TEAM

1. The Mid-term Reviewer highly recommends that relevant background documents are collected in advance of the terminal review and time demands are more carefully assessed. Up-to-date contact lists and a bibliography of key project documents would be helpful. The documents could be readily distributed on a CD. Ideally the Terminal Reviewer will have the financial support to visit all five countries. If this is not the case, visits inclusive of The Bahamas and The Dominican Republic are recommended.


2. The Reviewer would like to see better linkages made between the project Objective, Outcomes, and Indicators and tangible/measurable progress in to effectively address IAS in biological and economic terms. Measurable changes in relevant human behaviour would be more meaningful than measuring changes in public awareness as awareness does not necessarily translate into sustained behaviour change. Although it is likely too late in the project to make substantial changes to the logframe, the Reviewer recommends tying measurable biological and/or economic values to the logframe elements wherever feasible.

3. The Reviewer recommends that the Task Manager provide further evaluation/input on several capacity issues raised during the review:

A. The “Mitigating the Threats” project is rather ambitious given its context, timeframe, and budget.

The Reviewer is concerned that the participants are spread too thin and that people at all levels of the project report being overloaded and under stress. This situation is likely to end up producing numerous outputs with questionable effectiveness on IAS. It is in the best interest of the project to determine how to better support the project staff and partners and to consider refocusing some of its efforts to do few activities with a greater capacity for impact. For example, it may be wise not to implement the new Trinidad & Tobago Aquatic IAS Public Awareness Campaign and to put those resources into supporting existing projects and/or helping to secure sustainability for one or more other projects

B. Numerous interviewees felt that regional leadership has not been proactive enough from multiple perspectives, including raising visibility of the project, bringing key stakeholder to the table, keeping project participants well-informed and engaged, and providing/facilitating constructive technical and logistical support.

C. Interviewees in The Dominican Republic indicated that the National Steering Committee is not

fully operational2 and that work is not proceeding in an effective manner. They indicated a lack of direction and ownership over the project.

D. Remaining financial planning concerns:

- Interviewees report that funds are largely or even totally unspent in some project categories.

The status of unspent funds needs to be evaluated as soon as possible and, where appropriate, these funds directed toward other project elements.

- Several individuals, in multiple countries, sited the lack of a “granting mechanism” as a barrier

to timely project implementation. The possibility of establishing granting mechanisms should be explored. It is not clear if this is a barrier at the regional or national level.

- Interviewees expressed a need for further clarification on financial reporting timelines,

establishment of reporting consistency, and greater flexibility on documenting in-kind services from project partners.

FOR UNEP, GEF, AND PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS

1. For future relevant projects on IAS at the regional scale, the Reviewer recommends requiring that at least one species and one pathway specific pilot project is shared (co-implemented) by all countries. Not only would this facilitate “on-the-ground” achievements, but more deliberately build the infrastructure necessary to enact a regional-approach to IAS. The lionfish work demonstrates the substantial value of a shared topic of concern when projects are to be explicitly regional in scope.

2. It appears that the pilot projects were not selected based on a clearly defined set of “best practice”

criteria carefully defined for the project context (budget, information base, technical capacity, and logistics), and either there was inadequate technical advice provided during the project planning phase

2 Note: In responding to this Review, the National Coordinator for the Dominican Republic noted surprise at this comment made by interviewees and provided copies of attendance lists that suggest the National Steering Committee has had multiple meetings.


or the technical advice was not well incorporated in some cases. In the future, the Reviewer recommends establishing a clear set of criteria that provided practical boundaries and explicitly harness the catalytic potential of targeted exercises. Such criteria include: established baseline data and readily available information for project design; relative logistical ease for implementation (e.g., site access, technical support, equipment availability); ability to accomplish measurable “on-the-ground” impacts within four years (and ideally disseminate the results within this time period as well), highly visible activities/outcomes that are likely to increase awareness of the IAS issue and leverage further support (including substantial cash and in-kind resources); and outputs that can have a direct impact on policy making and management goals, actively facilitate stakeholder engagement at all levels (especially partnerships between government agencies and other institutions), train/employ local staff, foster infrastructure development at national and regional levels, and demonstrate potential for sustainability (based on leadership, visibility, financial leveraging, etc.).

Overall rating The overall rating given to the project is Moderately Satisfactory (MS) to Satisfactory (S).


1. Introduction and background

1.1 Project development

The Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean project (Project Number: GF/1030-09-03) benefited from a US$225,000 PDF grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Consultation for the GEF Full-Sized Project (FSP) took place in 2006 and early 2007 among six countries (The Bahamas, Cuba, The Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Trinidad & Tobago) and several regional and global organisations of relevance. (Note: After completing the PDF-A, Cuba decided not to take part in further activities in the multi-country project and pursued/received its own MSP) The multi-country proposal for the FSP was submitted to UNEP-GEF in September 2007 and approved by GEF in July 2009. Formal project implementation began in September 2009. However, several project elements did not get underway until 2010 and 2011 due to logistical challenges. The project is scheduled for completion in September 2013. The total project cost is $US7,116,616.

1.2 Project description

The Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean project (hereafter referred to as the “Mitigating the Threats” project) is being supported by GEF and other co-financiers (see Annex 5-7 for complete lists). The project was designed with regional, national and site-specific components; each of the five participating countries has at least one pilot project (Annex 8) complemented by several other national activities. UNEP is acting as the Implementing Agency (IA). The Caribbean and Latin American office of CABI is the Regional Executing Agency (REA) for the project. Roles of the IA and REA are as follows: Implementing Agency (IA): Is accountable to the GEF Executive Council. It is responsible for ensuring that agreed outcomes are realized and assuring the delivery of activities in a timely and cost-effective manner. Its role is relevant to both project cycle management and project supervision, technical advice and quality assurance (in cooperation with EA), and accountability (to GEF Trustee and Council). Regional Executing Agency (REA): Is accountable to the IA. It is responsible for technical and administrative services, as well as to ensure that agreed project objectives and outputs are achieved through project design and execution, identification and securing of appropriate technical and financial partners, project adaptive management (including monitoring, evaluation, reporting), financial and substantive project delivery, obtaining external co-finance for the project, and generating and disseminating knowledge from the project. The five target countries each have National Executive Agencies (NEA) – The Bahamas Environment, Science and Technology (BEST) Commission, Ministry of Health and Environment in The Bahamas; Secretaria del Estado de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, Secraria del Estado de Agricultura in the Dominican Republic; National Environment and Planning Agency in Jamaica; Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry & Fisheries in Saint Lucia; and Ministry of Food Production, Land & Marine Affairs. An International Project Steering Committee (IPSC) has met twice (29 October 2009; 12 October 2010) in order to review progress and make adjustments deemed necessary. The project’s goal (Development Objective) was stated as ‘Globally significant ecosystems, species and genetic

diversity preserved in the Caribbean region through reduction of risk from invasive alien species.’ There are six indicators/targets for achievement of this goal:

1. Development of National Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Strategies 2. Establishment of Caribbean-Wide Cooperation and Strategy 3. Knowledge Generation, Management and Dissemination 4. Prevention of New IAS Introductions in Terrestrial, Freshwater and Marine Systems 5. Early Detection, Rapid Response and Control of IAS 6. Project Management

The project has seven Expected Outcomes, to:

1. Increased national capacity to address potential risks posed to biodiversity of global significant from IAS.

2. Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posed to biodiversity of global significant from IAS. 3. Access to data and Best Practices established. Public awareness of IAS strengthened.


4. Increased prevention of new IAS introductions impacting global biodiversity. 5. Increased eradication and/or improved control management of IAS impacting global biodiversity. 6. National and regional coordination; monitoring and evaluation. 7. Outcome evaluation

2. Scope, objective and methods of evaluation

2.1 Scope of Evaluation

In line with GEF procedures, a Mid-term Review (MtR) was undertaken to provide an objective assessment of the project and its implementation to date. In line with its Terms of Reference (ToR), the MtR (see Annex 1) aimed to: a) assess design and operational aspects, such as project management and implementation of activities and b) the level of progress towards project objectives. The mid-term targets for the six indicators and outcomes listed above are defined as: Outcome 1: Increased national capacity to address potential risks posed to biodiversity of global significant from IAS.

- National Steering operational and meeting regularly - Content of National Invasive Species Strategy developed and in draft

Outcome 2: Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posed to biodiversity of global significant from IAS.

- Regional Strategies in preparation Outcome 3: Access to data and Best Practices established. Public awareness of IAS strengthened.

- Critical Situation Analysis (CSA) for each country completed and disseminated - Lionfish pilot project findings documented - Stakeholder visits to all pilot sites - Project website established for internal use - Linkages to other websites functional - Invasive Species Compendium (ISC) launched - Public awareness baselines addressed - Target stakeholders agreed, including in private sector

Outcome 4: Increased prevention of new IAS introductions impacting global biodiversity. Saint Lucia

- No IAS posing threat to rare endemic species - Baseline survey completed by year 1 - Staff trained - Detailed activity in place - Private sector engagement

Trinidad & Tobago - Frosty Pod Rot (FPR) absent from Trinidad & Tobago - Rapid survey of FRP completed by year 1 - Trainers trained - Private sector engaged - Pathway analysis completed - Hotline established

Outcome 5: Increased eradication and/or improved control management of IAS impacting global biodiversity. Eradication

Trinidad & Tobago - Distribution of non-native strain of Caulerpa surveyed by end of year one - Field staff trained in control methods

The Dominican Republic - Baseline data available for predator eradication by end of year 1 - Eradication strategy developed

Jamaica - Baseline data for iguana project available by end year 1


- Eradication strategy developed - Rangers and other stakeholder trained

Saint Lucia - Baseline data on recently introduced iguana available by end year 1 - Live trapping grid established - Field staff, dogs and dog handlers trained

Control Bahamas & Jamaica

- Baseline data on lionfish collected and analysed by end of year 1 - Collection and handling protocol developed - Most effective control method identified from population control experiment (Bahamas)

Trinidad & Tobago - Baseline data on green mussel available by end year 1 - Data on environmental (by end year 1) and economic impacts of green mussel available - Field staff trained

Jamaica - Black River Lower Morass ecosystem evaluation completed by end year 1 - Baseline map available by end year 1 - Native species nursery established

Trinidad & Tobago - Baseline survey of invasive palm pests in Nariva Swamp completed by scoring leaf infestation

levels by end of year 1 - Palm seedlings collected and nursery established - Baseline survey of indicator native palm species Moriche Palm and Trinidad Royal Palm by

end of year 1

Outcome 6: National and regional coordination; monitoring and evaluation. - Project offices operational - Project plan in place and implemented - Reports produced on time - Monitoring and evaluation plan implemented to time - Two external audits completed

Outcome 7: Outcome evaluation

- Mid-term Review The MtR focused on determining whether the project has achieved these targets. The ToR also requested that the Evaluation consider these achievements in view of:

A. The Project Theory - Assessment of the assumptions and the theory of change (causal pathways) underpinning the project idea and design, including its coherence, internal and external validity.

B. Project Objectives and Logical Framework - Analysis of the project logical framework and variations over timing if any, including: - The links and causal relationships between inputs, activities, outcomes and impact (specific and

development objectives) - Relevant and appropriateness of indicators - Validity of assumptions and risks - Existence of formal approvals to any modifications of the logical framework

C. Project Design – Analysis of the project strategy and structure including: - Approach and methodology - Time Frame and resources - Institutional set-up - Management arrangements - Stakeholders and beneficiaries identification

Every project needs to be evaluated in accordance with its particular context. The following points were also taken into consideration in the course of evaluating this project:




- Baseline data on biodiversity in the Caribbean is relatively poor, making both assessments of alien

species impact and project progress very difficult to measure.

- Because the introduction of alien species into the region has occurred extensively for more than a century, it can be difficult to ascertain which species are native vs. alien, as well as how “natural communities” should appear and function.





grants some single countries have received for work on IAS.

2.2 Methodology

The Evaluation was conducted through a participatory approach. Individuals to be included in the Evaluation process were identified by the project team. Not all individuals identified by the project team participated, however. Some individuals had changed professional roles, felt that they did not have enough engagement the project to make comment, and/or did not respond to multiple requests for participation from the Reviewer and the relevant National Coordinator.

- Extensive face-to-face interviews and telephone/Skype interviews were held with project management and technical support staff, as well as international, regional, national and local stakeholders. These individuals included both project implementers and potential output users. Given budget limitations, Reviewer visits were only permissible to Trinidad & Tobago, Saint Lucia, and Jamaica. The Bahamas and The Dominican Republic did not have the benefit of face-to-face interviews.

- Discussions/interviews with the UNEP Project Task Manager

- Personnel questionnaires were distributed to everyone identified as an Evaluation participant, as well as

additional individuals encountered during site visits. Participants were told that their specific responses would remain confidential. The ToR required the Reviewer to develop a standard checklist to keep the review consistent across countries. The following questions were asked in the questionnaire and during interviews:

1. What has been your role(s) in the project? How long have you been engaged in the

project?

2. What do you perceive to be the major project accomplishments to date?

3. What are the major challenges that you have observed? What processes have been used to overcome them? How successful has this been?

4. What are the major lessons that have been learned from the project thus far? How will

these lessons be incorporated into the second term of the project?

5. What do you ultimately hope the project achieves?


6. What challenges do you perceive for the second half of the project? How do you anticipate

they can be overcome?

7. What opportunities/resources etc. are you aware of that the project has not yet taken

advantage of? How can these be capitalized on during the second half of the project?

8. Other observations/comments?

Interviewees were invited to submit relevant documents in support of their responses.

- National Coordinators were also sent draft pilot project tables (standardised strategic planning tables) to complete, as well as a list of questions directly relevant to mid-term targets. Completion of the pilot project tables was deemed necessary by the Reviewer because substantial changes had been made to several of the pilot projects but these had not yet been captured in one place by project leadership. The questions regarding mid-term targets were disseminated because responses to the personnel questionnaires and the review of submitted documents proved incomplete and inconsistent in some instances. The level/quality of response to these documents varied among countries, and this could have impacted the Reviewer’s interpretation of progress in some cases.

- Extensive review of literature provided by the project participants and independently researched by the Reviewer.

- Field visits to six of the locations where pilot project activities are being undertaken: Nariva Swamp and the Institute of Marine Affairs (green mussel lab analysis) in Trinidad; the ‘exotic’ green iguana in Saint Lucia (island eradication project sites were seen from a distance); and the Hellshire Hills (Jamaican iguana), lionfish beach front/Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory, and Black River Lower Morass in Jamaica. Note: This Evaluation is based on information that the Reviewer received from the project participants, partners, and UNEP Task Manager. A certain amount of generalization is necessary in an Evaluation of this nature. However, the Reviewer consciously sought to keep ‘general remarks’ to a minimum and purposely included comments from the questionnaires to reflect the full breadth of input and perspective (Annexes 9 and 10). In a project this large in scope, with as many people involved, it is common to encounter individuals with different points of view. The Reviewer believed it her role to present perspectives in a reasonably transparent manner (while respecting agreements for confidentiality), but not to serve as a mediator when differing opinions/observations were presented by interviewees. In a few instances the Reviewer felt that further investigation/assessment of perspectives was warranted in a timely manner in order to ensure project effectiveness. These issues are addressed in the Recommendations. See the following annexes:

List of interviewees: Annex 2 Documents reviewed: Annex 3 Pilot project summaries and Reviewer comments: Annex 8 Summary of responses to personnel questionnaire: Annex 9 Responses to national level targets/outcomes: Annex 10

2.3 Timing and arrangements

The MtR was originally scheduled for January 2011. Due to delays in identifying a Reviewer/contracting, the Evaluation did not begin until 1 September 2011. It was scheduled to be completed on 15 December 2011, but a no-cost extension was granted until 19 December to account for the late submission of key documents from some of the project participants. A field mission was carried out from 3–5 October in Trinidad, 6-7 October in Saint Lucia, and 21-24 in Jamaica. Due to logistical and financial constraints it was not possible to visit all countries or all project sites in the countries visited, but at least one pilot project site was visited in Trinidad, Saint Lucia, and Jamaica (see previous paragraph). The lack of ability to make direct contact with participants and visit pilot project locations in The Bahamas and The Dominican Republic certainly leaves the Reviewer less well-informed about work in these countries as compared to the other three. Unfortunately, the relatively poor response to the written surveys from these countries did not enable the Reviewer to adequately compensate for a lack of site visits. The ToR specified 30 days for the Evaluation process. It took more than twice this amount of


time to complete – in large part because relevant documents had not been proactively organized by most the project teams and the response to written queries was exceptionally slow and sometimes inadequate upon initial receipt (in some cases, multiple requests had to made and/or the Reviewer ended up drafting documents for the project teams to respond to). The Mid-term Reviewer highly recommends that relevant background documents are collected in advance and time demands are more carefully assessed for the Terminal Review.

3. Project Performance and Impact

An assessment of the degree of achievement of the Mid-term Targets is presented and Table 1 below. Comments relevant to this section are further detailed and supported by material in Annex 8 (pilot project summaries), Annex 9 (individual questionnaire responses), and Annex 10 (national-level accomplishments at mid-term). The Reviewer has included additional commentary/recommendations in Annex 8. Annex 9 is a compilation of responses to the individual questionnaire. Annex 10 provides copies of the comments on mid-term achievements in the form in which they were provided by the National Coordinators (i.e. the Reviewer has not edited these documents other than to correct some spelling mistakes/typographical errors). Project participants are encouraged to thoroughly read these annexes. The scale for Progress Rating as laid out in the GEF Review Parameters is: HS = Highly Satisfactory S = Satisfactory MS = Moderately Satisfactory MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory U = Unsatisfactory Table 1: Extent of achievement of Mid-term Targets based on logframe ‘achievement’ indicators

Project Objective and Outcomes

Description of Indicator

Baseline Level Mid-term Target Level at Mid-term Review (Sept -Dec 2011)/Progress Rating

Objective The project objective is to mitigate the threat to local biodiversity and economy of IAS in the insular Caribbean, including terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems.

IAS management framework operational score as recorded by the GEF IAS tracking tool.

Baseline Score at project inception: 7

Baseline Score to improve from 7 to 14.

Based on the GEF IAS tracking tool provided to the Reviewer, it appears that all countries are below the Mid-term target of 14. However, progress has been made in each country over the baseline level. Some countries have made substantially more progress than others. Moderately Satisfactory


3 Upon reading the Evaluation, the National Coordinator for the Dominican Republic expressed surprise at this statement and provided copies of attendance sheets indicating that the National Steering Committee has met multiple times.

Outcome 1: Increased national capacity to address potential risks posed to biodiversity of global significance from alien invasive species

1.1 National Working groups established in each country

National Steering Committee (NSC) established and operational (year 1)

National IAS group (developed from NSC) established and operational (year 4)

None of the project countries has operational multi-agency coordination mechanism for IAS (except Jamaica)

NSC operational and meeting regularly

National Steering Committees/Working Groups have been established and are reported to be meeting regularly. These groups were recognized by interviewees in each country as major project accomplishments. *Note: Questionnaire respondents in The Dominican Republic indicated concern that the National Steering Committee has not been meeting regularly and providing adequate leadership. The Reviewer was not able to follow up on this and encourages project leadership to do so.3 *Satisfactory

1.2 National IAS strategy produced for each country

NISS prepared and disseminated to stakeholders in each country (year 4)

Non-technical summary version of NISS produced and distributed (year 4)

No NISS in the project countries (except Bahamas)

Content of NISS developed and in draft

All countries have a NISS at least in draft form and plans to complete it. Interviewees pointed to the development of the NISS as a major project outcome. The Reviewer encourages each country to submit a copy of their completed NISS to the CBD-CHM for posting. Several interviewees expressed concern over the potential for enacting national IAS legislation. This needs to be an area of considerable focus and possibly more capacity building for the second half of the project. Satisfactory


Outcome 2: Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posed to biodiversity of global significance from invasive alien species

2.2 Draft region-wide invasive species strategies

Draft CRISIS document including marine, fresh water and terrestrial IAS, prepared and disseminated (year 4)

Regional Cooperation Mechanism for IAS in place (year 4)

No detailed treatment of marine, fresh water and terrestrial IAS in CRISIS document

Regional Strategies in preparation

Third Regional Consultation held in Bahamas in March 2011. Fifth Draft Regional IAS Strategy circulated for comments nationally, regionally and internationally. All countries report engagement in the CRISIS document and interviewees site it as one of the most important project accomplishments thus far. The Reviewer encourages the participants to: 1) ensure that the CRISIS gives adequate attention to prevention as the most cost-effective means for addressing IAS; 2) that each country develop an ACTION PLAN in order to ensure strategy implementation in a timely manner; and 3) that the CRISIS be submitted to the CBD-CHM for posting upon completion. This target is ahead of schedule but see Reviewer comments on page 43 regarding needs for further improvement for the draft document. Satisfactory


Outcome 3: Access to data and

best practice

established, and

public awareness

of IAS

strengthened

3.1 Data information and best practice on IAS management collated IAS information available to stakeholders and the public Critical situation Analysis (CSA) for each country finalized and disseminated (year 2)

Best Practice Guidelines on IAS management developed; booklet produced and disseminated (year 4)

Draft CSAs prepared during PPG No best practice guideline available

CSAs completed and disseminated (no mid-term target for Best Practice Guidelines to be produced in years 3 and 4)

CSA’s reported for The Dominican Republic and Saint Lucia. Others appear to be behind schedule, but working on it. Moderately Satisfactory The project has reportedly moved away from the concept of “Best Practice Guidelines” at this stage. The Dominican Republic reports having difficulty achieving this target. “Current Best Practices” are being compiled in a regional bulletin. Satisfactory

3.2 Pilot findings, existing and externally funded IAS related research at national and. regional levels documented Regional lionfish control strategy developed and disseminated (year 3)

Stakeholders (policymakers and practitioners) understand key findings and lessons learnt from pilot projects (year 4)

No regional strategy for lionfish control Solutions to IAS problems addressed by pilots are not well understood

Lionfish pilot project findings documented Stakeholders visits to all pilot sites

Project is part of the ad hoc Regional Lionfish Committee that was formed following the regional Lionfish Workshop in Mexico 24-28 August, 2010. The lionfish work is routinely cited as being among the most important accomplishments by interviewees in the countries working on lionfish and by project partners. This is likely due, in part, to the relative accessibility of this work as compared to other pilot projects. Participants report financial challenges in getting stakeholders to some pilot sites. This target should be reviewed for practicality. Satisfactory


3.3 Electronic networking systems, including linkages to GISP, GISIN and IABIN established Project website operational (year 1)

Linkages to GISP, GISIN, and IABIN websites Project findings disseminated through invasive species Compendium (ISC)

No project website No linkages to other database ISC under development

Project website for internal use Linkages to other websites functional ISC launched

Although CIASNET.org has been endorsed and adopted by CISWIG and the CPHDF as the official site for IAS information in the Caribbean and the private domain is operational, the website itself is not particularly attractive or functional and has thus far received limited contribution. Interviewees in each country indicated a desire for website improvement/ redesign. This discussion should be made a regional priority. Linkages to other relevant websites should be explored after website revision. The CBD IAS Portal should be included. The ISC Compendium is a work in progress. It is not clear what has been submitted /disseminated with regard to this project. Moderately Satisfactory


3.4 Public communication media and measures developed Pilot project activities and findings disseminated through public communication media

Public awareness of IAS increased Private sector actively engaged Human and technical capacity to prevent biological invasions strengthened Prevention or early detection and response to invasions by target IAS in pilot areas

Little or no publicity of the IAS problems addressed by pilot projects Low public awareness of IAS issues No staff in target areas trained specifically in IAS prevention methods Pilot areas free of target areas

Public awareness baselines addressed Target stakeholders agreed, including in private sector

Public awareness campaigns active in all countries and consistently sited by interviewees as top accomplishments. Multi-media elements developed and disseminated. Some of these products would greatly benefit from input by communications experts (e.g., too text heavy and language not well targeted to stakeholders). Public perception surveys completed in Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Saint Lucia, and the Black River Lower Morass pilot project in Jamaica. Measuring impact is traditionally difficult and should be anticipated for this project. It appears the new Trinidad & Tobago marine IAS campaign could use more strategic planning and input from organizations such as RARE. The Reviewer strongly encourages the project members to get training in social marketing/pride campaign strategies. Satisfactory


Outcome 4: Increased

prevention of new

IAS introductions

impacting global

biodiversity

4.1 National capacity to prevent biological invasions strengthened (Trinidad & Tobago and Saint Lucia) St. Lucia Increased capacity of field staff to monitor for biological invasions

Continued absence of IAS threatening rare endemic reptiles on Maria Islands pilot site (10 hectares)

No IAS posing threat to rare endemic species No systematic monitoring in place

No IAS posing threat to rare endemic species Baseline survey completed by year 1 Staff trained Detailed activity plan in place Private sector engaged

Off-shore islands continue to be kept IAS (predator) free through surveillance and baiting operations. Private sector (hotels) is providing in-kind support to ongoing monitoring activities conducted with the DWCT. 12 page brochure prepared with DWCT to raise awareness of offshore islands Interviewees encourage more engagement of relevant partners/stakeholders. Satisfactory

Trinidad &Tobago Increased ability of stakeholders to detect and report occurrences of Frosty Pod Rot (FPR) for all cocoa growing areas of TT – 6,900ha

National emergency plan developed and operational

FPR absent from T&T Little knowledge about FPR No emergency plan in place

FPR absent from T&T Rapid survey completed by year 1 Trainers train Private sector engaged Pathway analysis completed Hotline established

Key stakeholders trained in field and laboratory identification of FPR. Geo-referenced map of farms survey prepared. Surveillance ongoing. Hotline established. Pathway risk assessment completed. National emergency plan not yet underway but anticipated. Satisfactory


Outcome 5: Increased

capacity to

eradicate, and

improve control

and management

of IAS impacting

global

biodiversity.

5.1 Incipient invasions of marine IAS detected and prevented (Trinidad & Tobago) Populations of Caulerpa taxifolia tested to identify non-native strain

Non-native strain eradicated where present Monitoring system developed and operational (coastal areas of TT with emphasis on west coast)

Unknown strain of Caulerpa in coastal waters

Distribution of non-native strain surveyed by end of year 1 Field staff trained in control methods

The strain has been since identified as a native strain. The Reviewer considers this a poor choice for a pilot project and understands from interviewees that the identification of the strain was known prior to full project enactment. This pilot is being reformulated for the public awareness of marine and aquatic IAS and will be executed by the MFPLMA in collaboration IMA and EMA. Interviewees areport not being made aware of the change in project status/replacement. Project Closed – Unrated See comments on replacement project page 46


5.2 Populations of invasive animals and plants (Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Lucia Eradicated) Dominican Republic Pilot

Abundance & distribution of threatened native species (birds & reptiles) in pilot sites (Alto Velo, 100ha), Cabritos, 2,400 ha) determined (baseline)

Presence and abundance of target IAS determined (baseline)

Eradication strategies developed & implemented Post-eradication monitoring of IAS and threatened native species

Dominican Republic Pilot

Native species (e.g. Anolis lizard) threatened by IAS Current status of IAS in pilot sites unknown

Dominican Republic Pilot

Baseline data available by end year 1 Eradication strategy developed

Initial baseline survey was qualitative. A quantitative survey repeated in June. The NSC finalised eradication plans following input from local communities, IC (California) and IC (Mexico). The proposed strategy of live removal of animals will not yield 100% eradication, but is currently necessary for stakeholder support. Some neem removed from Alto Velo. Role identified for Grupo Jaragua to do post eradication surveillance and verification. Moderately Satisfactory


Jamaican Pilot

Abundance & distribution of native iguana on Goat Islands (52,000ha) determined (baseline)

Eradication strategies for target IAS developed & implemented Adaptive management plan for Goat Islands in place

Jamaican Pilot

Non-native predators threatening native iguanas on Goat Islands

Current status of IAS in pilot sites unknown

Jamaican Pilot

Baseline data available by end year 1

Eradication strategy developed

Rangers & other stakeholders trained

Baseline surveys completed. Summary report available. Endemic iguana population responding to control of IAS in Hellshire Hills. Breeding population increasing and more breeding sites being developed. Complete eradication of all predators is not realistic given the ability of animals to move into the site from outside the area. However, long-term control operations might enable the iguana population to increase to a level that can sustain limited predation. Ability to proceed with Goat Island is questionable at this time due to the fact that it is under the authority of the Urban Development Corporation. Partners with considerable policy/negotiation experience may need to be engaged. Moderately Satisfactory

Saint Lucia pilot:

Surveys of native and exotic iguana population in Soufriere at beginning (baseline) & end of project (impact).

Live trapping grid established & implemented

Exotic iguana population removed

Saint Lucia:

No data on abundance & distribution of exotic iguanas, or impact on native iguana populations

Saint Lucia:

Baseline data available by end year 1

Live trapping grid established

Field staff, dogs & dog-handlers trained

Logistical challenges for this site are substantial. Baseline surveys completed. Trapping has thus far not proven particularly effective. Field testing of dog completed, but inadequate funding available to enact approach. The ability to assess project progress/impact is confounded by a lack of population estimates. The Reviewer considers eradication unlikely under the current scenario. Moderately Satisfactory


5.3 Marine IAS controlled and managed (Bahamas, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago)

Bahamas &

Jamaica pilots:

Baseline data on lionfish incidence available (year 1)

Lionfish collection & handling protocol in place (year 1)

Effective control method for lionfish identified (year 2)

Policies & regulations in place to facilitate lionfish management (year 4)

Adaptive management plan for lionfish in place in both countries (year 4)

Regional lionfish control strategy developed and disseminated: see Output 3.2

Bahamas &

Jamaica:

Accurate baseline data on lionfish incidence not available

Control methods poorly understood

No coordinated response mechanism

Bahamas &

Jamaica:

Baseline data collected and analysed by end year 1

Collection & handling protocol developed

Most effective control method identified from population control experiment (Bahamas)

Interviewees consider the work on lionfish to be among the top project accomplishments. Progress has been made in research, public/education and awareness, social marketing, and community engagement. Challenges have arisen in some aspects of the project and outside reviews by technical experts were obtained (See list of documents in Annex 3). Project leadership seems to be aware of the steps that need to be taken to overcome the identified issues. See Annexes 8 and 9 for lists of accomplishments The Reviewer encourages project teams to carefully monitor the Ciguatera/lionfish findings in other parts of the Caribbean as this may have a substantial impact on consumption as a removal strategy. This work demonstrates the capacity building potential of a multi-country approach to shared issues. Highly Satisfactory


Trinidad & Tobago

pilot:

Baseline data on green mussel distribution available (year 1)

Environmental impact of green mussel determined in coastal areas of T&T with emphasis on west coast (year 1)

Economic impact of green mussel determined (year 2)

Effective method for control & management identified & tested (year 4)

Trinidad &

Tobago:

No data available on environmental & economic impacts of green mussel

No coordinated management strategy in place

Trinidad &

Tobago:

Baseline data available (year 1)

Data on environmental (by end year 1) & economic impacts of green mussel available

Field staff trained

Baseline surveys and ecological assessment completed in north-western and south-western and southern areas of Trinidad. Taxonomic identification of a large no. of specimens collected is ongoing. Environmental impact assessment underway – but might be difficult to fully ascertain given lack of baseline data on other marine species. Economic impact study underway by UWI. Work with industry stakeholders has proven challenging. Satisfactory

5.4 Protection measures for sites of high conservation value (Jamaica, Trinidad & Tobago)

Jamaica pilot

(Black River

Morass RAMSAR

site, 5,700ha):

Ecosystem evaluation completed (year 1)

Baseline map of pilot area (year 1)

Target species removed (year 4)

Native species re-established by replanting (year 4)

Adaptive Management Plan in place (year 4)

Mapping after project interventions

Jamaica (Black

River Morass):

No baseline data available for pilot site

Jamaica (Black

River Morass):

Ecosystem evaluation completed (by year 1)

Baseline map available (by end year 1)

Native species nursery established

Logistical challenges for this site are substantial. Activities were deferred to Yr 2 to develop a more thorough work plan and leverage funds to purchase ATV etc. UNEP/CABI and NSC agreed on the way forward. ATV not yet obtained on site. Given the logistical challenges at this site and rate of spread of the target species, the Reviewer strongly encourages the project team to consider an IPM approach including biocontrol. The Reviewer also encourages the team to consider action on water hyacinth, for which there are well tested biocontrol agents. The Reviewer considers it highly unlikely that control of the target species will be established by the time the GEF project concludes. Moderately Satisfactory


4 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, the National Coordinator for Trinidad and Tobago remarked that identifying a biocontrol agent is a ministerial level priority.

Plant IAS removed from pilot area (year 3)

Native palm seedlings re-established (year 4)

Incidence of invasive palm pests (red palm mite & coconut moth) determined (every 2 months)

Pest control methods developed & implemented (year 4)

Trinidad &

Tobago (Nariva

Swamp):

No baseline data on impacts of plant and pest IAS in pilot area

Trinidad &

Tobago (Nariva

Swamp):

Baseline survey of invasive palm pests (red palm mite & coconut moth) by scoring leaf infestation levels (by end year 1).

Palm seedlings collected and nursery established

Baseline survey of indicator native palm species Moriche Palm (Mauritia

flexuosa) and Trinidad Royal Palm (Roystonea

oleracea) by end year 1.

Logistical challenges for this site are substantial. This project has undergone substantial revision due to the fact that the red palm mite was already established in the area. See Annex 8. Baseline survey ongoing. Initial results show that the 11 species of palms present in the Nariva Swamp, a Ramsar site. With the Moriche Palm the main source of food for the blue and gold Macaw being severely affected by the red palm mite. Economic assessment underway with UWI. The success of this project is now largely dependent on an effective biocontrol agent. Several interviewees expressed concern that not enough is being done to get biocontrol agents identified, tested, and placed in the field4. The Reviewer considers it highly unlikely that control of red palm mite will be established by the time the GEF project concludes. Moderately Satisfactory


A. Attainment of objectives and planned results

1. Effectiveness

The project had one Development Objective (goal) and seven Outcomes, and indicators for these were set in the logframe of the Project Document. According to the MtR’s ToRs, the “achievement” indicators in the logframe together with any additional monitoring tools, including the GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT), were to be used to assess the extent to which the project’s major relevant objectives had been met. An assessment of the degree of achievement of the Outcomes is presented in Table 1 above.

Output 6: Effective project management and coordination; monitoring and evaluation (M&E)

6.1 Project deliverables produced on time and within budget

International project office operational (year 1)

National project offices operational (year 1)

Detailed Project Plan in place (year 1)

Accounting system in place (year 1)

Progress & financial reports to time (continuous)

No project structure in place

No detailed Project Plan

Project offices operational

Project Plan in place and implemented

Reports produced to time

Project deliverables in components one, two, and three are on or ahead of schedule. Half of the pilot projects are significantly behind time. 2010 Audit submitted on time. Quarterly financial reports being submitted on time. Mid-term evaluation behind schedule but completed by the end of 2011. Project interviewees indicate that they need more logistical and technical support from the regional office, and concerns over reporting procedures and financial transactions remain high. Satisfactory

6.2 Effective M&E framework in place

M&E Plan finalized (year 1)

M&E Plan implemented (continuous)

External audits conducted (annual)

M&E Plan in draft form

M&E Plan being implemented to time

Two external audits competed

2009 Audit completed M&E Benchmarks being used in Project Management Meetings. Weekly communication with NC being instituted to ensure quality and timely delivery Satisfactory

Outcome 7: Independent evaluations

Mid-term evaluation completed (year 2)

Terminal evaluation completed (year 4)

N/A--+- Mid-term evaluation completed

Completed – though nearly a year behind January 2011 schedule


As can be seen from Table 1, the project appears to have achieved a rather mixed level of success and impact at mid-term. From the Reviewer’s perspective, part of this is a reflection of a project design that did not receive and/or incorporate adequate technical input. The stated Objective is rather broad and not particularly practical given the scale/context of this project:

- “Mitigating” is not defined and generally means to lesson or make less severe. What is an acceptable level of mitigation for this project? Given the paucity of data on IAS in the region, what is the baseline that “acceptable mitigation” is to be measured against?

- ‘Threat” is also not defined and is generally considered an intention to cause harm rather than the act of causing harm. There is no quantified baseline assessment of either the “threat” (risk of harm) of IAS in the region, nor an assessment of the actual biological and economic damages already incurred by IAS.

- The project engages only five countries and does not include a substantial component of information and capacity transfer to the rest of the region within the project timeframe.

The Reviewer would have liked to have seen clear linkages made between the project Outcomes and the Objective – i.e. a clear indication of how the selected Outcomes make tangible/measurable progress in biological and economic terms toward the Outcome (although difficult to do with an Objective of this nature). The Outcomes also include a number of vague elements that confound Evaluation:

- Terms such as “increased” and “strengthened” are not defined in readily measurable terms. Baseline levels often are stated in terms of some measure not existing at all, so simply putting some measure in place could be enough under the current schema to quality as “increased” or “strengthened.” What actually matters in biological and economic terms is the tangible impact the activities have on IAS (i.e. not just the presence of an activity, but its measurable effectiveness).

- “Biodiversity of global significance” is not defined. Who determines what biodiversity is of global significance and based on what criteria? Why is “global significance” an Outcome for a relatively small regional project comprising five island countries? A “locally observable/measurable” set of Outcome frames would likely have been more practical and more readily evaluated.

The Indicators largely focus on the establishment/creation of specific outputs (i.e. the output exists or not). The Reviewer would have liked to have seen Indicators that included measures of actual effectiveness toward reaching Outcomes and an Objective that was tangible in biological and economic terms relevant to IAS. Measurable changes in relevant human behaviour would be more meaningful than measuring changes in public awareness as awareness does not necessarily translated into sustained behaviour change. The Reviewer discourages the use of Table 1 as a standalone representation of project progress. Because the Objective and Outcomes are rather vague and the indicators (though considered ‘SMART’5) do not truly serve as indicators of biodiversity or economic status or threat reduction, they do not fully reflect what is and could be achieved through this project. In other words, the success of the project is not likely to be adequately demonstrated through the logframe indicators. A further understanding of the project’s achievement and impact in relation to project goals can be gained from reviewing Annexes 8 (pilot project tables), 9 (collated interview responses), and 10 (national achievements associated with the Outcomes/Indicators). All that said, the project has largely been successful in meeting its Mid-term Targets. Notable project successes include: ‘final draft’ of a regional IAS strategy (although see comments about improvement later in the document); IAS regional steering committee and national-level committees/working groups; employment of national IAS coordinators; concrete achievements on the lionfish projects that serve to raise awareness of the IAS issue in general and are transferable to all areas invaded or likely to be invaded by lionfish; extensive outreach on IAS through the popular media and peer-reviewed literature; recruitment and training of technical project personnel; leveraging of resources (financial and technical) from a variety of sources within and outside the region; and lessons have been learned about project design and implementation procedures that will likely

5 SMART = Specific, Measurable, Achievable and Attributable, Relevant and Realistic and Time-bound, Timely, Trackable and Targeted. SMART indicators are a requirement for GEF project M&E plans. See the ToR for the final evaluation in Annex 1.


prove to be invaluable well beyond the scope and term of this project. (See Annex 9 for a list of accomplishments identified by project interviewees). Other less tangible, but nevertheless important achievements, include: building relationships across sectors in each country and across countries; raising the visibility of the project and regional issues outside the region; and forging partnerships between government agencies, universities, NGOs, the private sector, local communities and other stakeholders. The late implementation of several pilot project elements due to logistical challenges in unfortunate, but not particularly surprising given the choice of projects. Although all of the pilot project teams are quite dedicated and have qualified leadership, several of them are not ideally suited to accomplish the stated Objective/Outcomes in the timeframe and budget allocated. It is premature to judge the tangible impact that the pilot projects and the multi-country project as a whole will have on IAS prevention, control, and eradication of the target species into the long-term. Demonstrating a sustained increased in IAS awareness which translates into relevant changes in human behaviour is notoriously difficult. Changing human behaviours requires a constant, long-term approach, targeted in message and delivery style to key audiences (stakeholders). When culturally/biologically significant changes do occur, it is usually the result of multiple approaches enacted over many years. RARE is one of the few groups which has a good track record for such accomplishments in the Caribbean and beyond. While this project has developed some baselines on public awareness and numerous public awareness brochures, flyers, posters, etc., not all of the products are particularly well-developed (though some are excellent) or strategically distributed, and, to the best of the Reviewer’s knowledge, there is no explicit sustainability plan for public education/outreach built into the various awareness raising elements. It will be difficult to measure the sustainable impact of the activities currently underway at project closure. Over the next two years, the Reviewer strongly encourages the participants to learn from the RARE example and more explicitly work from a social marketing/pride campaign perspective, engaging partners that can help ensure project, message, and behavioural sustainability. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

2. Relevance

The project as currently designed is consistent with GEF-4 Biodiversity Strategic Programme 7: Prevention, Control and Management of IAS, addressing the following priorities:

- Strengthening the enabling policy and institutional environment for cross-sectoral prevention and management of invasions through Outcome 1, where national strategies will be put in place to inform and develop policies, legislation, regulations and management, and through Outcome 2 which will establish a region-wide IAS strategy and framework for cooperation;

- Implementing communication and prevention strategies that emphasize a pathways and ecosystem approach to managing invasions through Outcome 3, where knowledge generation and dissemination activities will strengthen access to and implementation of best practices in prevention;

- Developing and implementing appropriate risk analysis procedures for non-native species importations through pilot projects under Outcome 4, which support and inform Outcome 1;

- Early detection and rapid response procedures for management and nascent infestations – through innovation and cost effective pilot projects under Outcome 5;

- Managing priority alien species in pilot sites to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity also through Outcomes 4 and 5, piloting prevention and response measures to biological invasions.

A Workshop on Legal Tools to Address Invasive Alien Species was held in March 2011 in the Bahamas. However, the training received mixed reviews in terms of effectiveness, and was not sufficient to provide the impetus needed to move forward the need for policy and legislation. See also “National Legislative Framework

on Invasive Alien Species in Selected Caribbean Island States” in the documents reviewed list in Addendum 3.


IAS are a priority for consideration under Article 8(h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as well as Target 9 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (CBD Strategic Plan 2011-2020. Several project elements advance work toward this CBD Target on a national and regional basis, and they also serve as responses to key CBD decisions on IAS (particularly those arising from COP VI/23 and SBSTTA 15). Project leaders should ensure that the project results, particularly the regional and national strategies and action plans, are submitted to the CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM) and IAS Portal. The countries should also report, as relevant, on progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Focal points for the various international organisations listed on pages 45-46 of the Project Document should be identified, kept well-informed about the project, and encouraged to find opportunities to transfer project lessons and outputs into this fora. At mid-term it is not particularly feasible to determine how relevant the project will actually be. Ultimately this depends on how proactive the project leadership is in making it relevant. This may become an increasing issue of concern as several interviewees perceived a current lack of proactive leadership at the regional level and anticipated that this would remain a challenge for the rest of the project. Project participants are encouraged to begin identifying strategic actions to make the project relevant throughout the region and globally and begin to implement these actions at both the national and regional levels. Rating – Satisfactory (in terms of potential)

3. Efficiency

Because the project has such a relatively low budget for its scale and Objectives/Outcomes, it must be cost-efficient if it is going to succeed. Some of the project elements are built upon efforts that were already underway (e.g., Jamaican iguana, some national strategies, CABI Compendium) and have previously garnered financial and logistical support. The project is thus far achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. The project received US$ 1,312,421 as of 30 September, 2011 from the GEF Trust Fund (includes a PDF-A grant of US$200,00) and raised US$682,622 of in-kind financing, US$447,533 of cash co-financing and US$369,346 of leveraged co-financing, giving a total of US$1,499,501 in co-financing as of 30 June 2011. See Annexes 4, 5, 6. Interviewees have stated that co-financing is actually being under-reported due to time constraints and thus the project is leveraging more (potentially 25% more according to some project participants) than is being documented. Interviewees also state that existing project funds are being spent behind projected rates. In some cases this is due to changes in project direction. In other instances the reasons for lack of fund allocation are not readily apparent. The status of allocated/unspent monies should be assessed as soon as possible and those funds applied toward priority activities in order to ensure that they are efficiently used during the term of this project. Efficiency could be greatly increased if the CIASNET.org website were made more user-friendly and populated enough to serve as a dynamic IAS information portal for project implementers and stakeholders. This should be a project priority as its status supports or hinders all other aspects of the project. Rating – Satisfactory

B. Sustainability

In the GEF context, “sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends.” According to its ToR, the Evaluation should address four aspects of sustainability: Financial; Socio-political; Institutional Framework and Governance; and, Environmental. At mid-term, identification of any likely barriers to sustaining the intended outcomes of the project is especially important. In the Reviewer’s opinion and in the minds of several project participants who have substantial experience in working with IAS, the project design places little inherent emphasis on ensuring sustainability. The Project Document provides a conceptual approach to sustainability but does not offer a strategic sustainability plan. Several of the projects are behind schedule or have needed revision at mid-term, and these teams are thus more focused on “catching up” than “looking ahead.” The Reviewer strongly encourages the project participants to begin developing explicit sustainability plans and engaging in relationships with partner organisations and donors that can help provide the support necessary for sustainability.


As a minimum, the project should seek to provide a foundation for future efforts by:

- Establishing CIASNET.org as an attractive, highly-effective IAS portal for the region.

- Finalizing the regional and national invasive species strategies and coupling them with fully operational action plans. These should be submitted to the CIASNET.org portal and CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CBD IAS Portal) for access by other interested parties.

- Establishing/improving national IAS databases using standards, formats, and protocols that will enable them to be interoperable on regional and global levels. These should be accessible through CIASNET.org and data share with the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and new structures/opportunities to be created by the recently developed Joint Programme of Work on IAS Information under the CBD.

- Securing multi-sector and cross-agency IAS committees/working groups at the national level that are

sanctioned by the appropriate ministries (written into legislation where feasible), include participants who are well positioned to influence policy and provide technical expertise on IAS and programme management, and have as their explicit mission the implementation of IAS strategies and action plans.

- Ensuring that each government creates a permanent IAS National Coordinator position that is placed in an appropriate ministry at a level high enough to have access to decision makers and direct programme/project implementation.

- Investing in the prevention infrastructure by securing the databases mentioned above, building Customs and police officer training and expanding the inspection/enforcement services, providing identification tools to the inspection/enforcement services, demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of prevention through economic analyses, institutionalising risk analysis capacities, establishing prevention measures in law and policy (including codes of conduct), and establishing early detection/rapid response programmes for high risk IAS. The project teams are strongly encouraged to begin national and regional work on the tourism and pet trade pathways before the project ends and to make this a priority for continued worked throughout the broader Caribbean region.

- Ensuring the long-term implementation of public awareness and education campaigns that are developed and lead by proactive, technically qualified individuals with expertise in social marketing and pride campaigns.

- Incorporating measures, as appropriate, into law and policy that allow for the eradication and control of IAS on public and private lands, and that establish both incentives for IAS prevention/mitigation and severe penalties for violating IAS laws/regulations.

- Working with aptly qualified technical advisory teams to determine the appropriate future direction for the pilot projects and garnering support for future work plans. The future work plans should include explicit feedback loops for informing science-based decisions by policy makers.

- Package and transmit lessons learned from this project in the form of reports, podcasts, training courses, etc. for use by all other interested stakeholders within and outside the Caribbean region.

1. Financial resources

Actions to achieve financial sustainability of project results were not explicitly built into the original project design. The Reviewer encourages the project participants, in light of the list above, to begin seeking resources that will carry key elements of the project forward after termination of the GEF funding. A long-term funding strategy should be developed that seeks to garner both cash resources and in-kind services. More constructive engagement with NGOs and academic institutions within and outside the region will be of paramount importance in achieving financial sustainability. Thus far the project participants have been successful in achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. There is reason to believe that they can continue to be successful in this regard and achieve financial sustainability if they make it a priority over the next two years.


The project received US$ 1,312,421 as of 30 September, 2011 from the GEF Trust Fund (includes a PDF-A grant of US$200,00) and raised US$682,622 of in-kind financing, US$447,533 of cash co-financing and US$369,346 of leveraged co-financing, giving a total of US$1,499,501 in co-financing as of 30 June 2011. Interviewees have stated that co-financing is actually being under-reported due to time constraints and thus the project is leveraging more (potentially 25% more according to some project participants) than is being documented. See Annexes 4, 5, 6. In reviewing the Annexes, the Project Funds Manager notes:

1. The original budget was used as final approval of the revised Year 2 budget submitted earlier this year

has not yet been received.

2. Co-financing report form: not sure what the last 2 columns "Total Disbursement" represent. Rating – Moderately Likely (if the participants make this an immediate priority)

2. Socio-political

Non-native species are largely designated as IAS through value-based determinations and their introduction and spread is facilitated by trade, travel, and transport. The issue is therefore inherently tied to socio-economic and political factors. According to interviewees, this should be a topic of concern for project participants. Long-term success of this project is largely in the hands of the national governments. At this time, IAS is not a policy priority and little proactive effort has yet to be made through the project to incorporate IAS into existing legal/policy frameworks or draft new legislation and soft law tools (e.g., codes of conduct). Interviewees also point to a need for the project to strengthen relationships with stakeholder groups that have the capacity and inspiration to assume long-term ownership. Based on the Reviewer’s perspective and the observation of several people in project leadership roles, insufficient proactive effort has been made to bring representatives from major international NGOs, academic institutions, and other relevant organisations to the table. This is a challenge that must be overcome in the near-term is socio-political sustainability is to be achieved. See Annex 9 for relevant comments from interviewees. The project has established a very good track record for engaging local communities as project stakeholders. This work is to be commended and further encouraged. However, it is not likely to translate into sufficient socio-political support at the institutional level required by the project. Rating – Moderately Likely

3. Institutional framework and governance

The institutionalisation of key project activities is of paramount importance to ensuring programme and project sustainability. While this is intellectually recognised by project leadership at the coordination and pilot project levels (see interviewee comments Annex 9), the project does not explicitly include actions to secure institutionalisation of staffing positions, programmes, or activities initiated or expanded through the GEF project. This needs to be achieved through development and implementation of a strategic sustainability plan in the near term. Government leadership in partnership with NGOs (e.g., Island Conservation), IGOs (e.g., IUCN), academic institutions (e.g., University of the West Indies campuses), and other relevant organisations both within and outside the region is needed to establish sustained institutional frameworks and governance. Particular attention should also be given to institutionalising the framework and governance through formal recognition and incorporation, as appropriate, into regional and global bodies such as CARDI, CARICOM, GBIF, GLISPA, and IABIN. Some of this work is underway, but interviewees point to a need for more proactive effort in this regard. See also relevant comments made in the previous sections on Sustainability. As documented in Annexes 8, 9, and 10, stakeholder awareness-raising and school education programmes have been an early source of success for this project. Project participants need to begin to consider how this foundation of success can be used to build a long-term capacity for changing human behaviour in such a manner


that it substantially reduces the risk of IAS introduction, spread, and impact. The Reviewer encourages the project team to explore partnering with RARE and PCI-Media Impact in this regard. Overburdened staff and insufficient technical capacity in some areas are currently among the project challenges identified by interviewees (Annex 9). For the most part, all of the pilot project leaders have done a good job at recruiting and/or training qualified staff. However, they report being under-resourced in terms of staff numbers and back-stopping for leadership roles. At the project coordination level, nationally and regionally, there has been substantial turnover. This has led to implementation delays. Before long-term sustainability can be secured, immediate action needs to be taken to more appropriately distribute workloads (more staff, wider delegation of responsibilities, and/or adjustments to deliverables and timelines) and build sufficient staff technical capacity (especially for the pilot projects). Capacity building needs identified by several project participants in multiple countries include:


- Social marketing/pride campaign development and implementation. These capacities would help the

public awareness/education initiatives more from merely providing information/knowledge to actually influencing human behaviour in a manner that substantially reduces the risk of IAS introduction and impact over the long-term.

- Risk analysis. Risk analysis is one of the most important tools in the prevention framework. Capacity building in risk analysis has been identified as a priority by the CBD and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standard setting bodies, among others. The project team should look to these fora for guidance and support (grants, tools, training, etc).

Two broader issues impact institutional sustainability in the Caribbean and other “developing” regions:

1. Well-trained individuals have a tendency to seek employment opportunities outside of the region and outside of the government. The project sustainability plan should call for the development of senior-level positions with sufficient professional advancement opportunity to attract and maintain individuals within regional leadership roles.

2. Human safety at field sites is also a matter of concern, particularly for women and young people. Project leadership needs to balance project promotion with project site security. Field team members should be given sufficient training in self-defence, emergency medical response, and equipment operation to: a) feel secure and b) be able to make tactical decisions should problems arise.

Rating – Moderately Likely

4. Environmental

Any factor that increases environmental disturbance is likely to favour the establishment and spread of IAS. Project participants should particularly recognize that:

- IAS are themselves an environmental threat. Unless adequate measures are put in place to prevent the entry of potential IAS and substantially mitigate the spread/impact of those already established, IAS will become an increasing threat in the Caribbean region. Three pathways of intentional and unintentional introduction need to strategically addressed at national and regional scales in order to substantially reduce this risk in the near term: horticulture, tourism, and the pet/animal trade. [Note: The Reviewer also recognizes the importance of ballast water and hull fouling pathways and encourages the participating countries to work on these through International Maritime Organisation (IMO)]

- Climate change is increasingly drawing the attention of governments in the Caribbean region, but at insufficient levels to mitigate the impacts for the foreseeable future. The best available scientific data indicates that climate change will impact the region through increases in storm scale and frequency (including higher storm surges, flooding and wind damage, salt water inundation, and mudslides); sea level rise and associated salinization; and drought in some specific areas. Research also indicates that many ectotherms in the tropics are already at the upper limits of their physiological tolerance and that


reptiles with temperature-dependent sex determination will be severely impacted by warming temperatures. Studies on plants are also revealing that some species of IAS are likely to thrive under increased carbon dioxide levels while others will be less successful.

Rating – Moderately Likely

C. Achievement of outputs and activities

At mid-term, most of the project activities are still “in progress” [In some cases they are on schedule and simply require more time. In other instances this is because the elements are behind schedule due to logistical challenges.] This report does not attempt to document all of the outputs and activities underway but identifies those that have been brought to the Reviewer’s attention by the interviewees (see the list of documents reviewed and consulted in Annex 3 and the list of accomplishments in Annexes 9 and 10). The Reviewer has chosen to briefly highlight five activities that warrant particular acknowledgment and/or input at this time: the Regional Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan, the CIASNET.org website, lionfish projects, other pilot projects, and the Trinidad & Tobago Marine IAS Public Awareness Campaign.

1. Regional Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (Outcome 2) The fifth and final draft of the Strategy and Action Plan for Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean Region,

2011-2015 was released in May 2011, well ahead of project schedule. Originally, project partners intended to develop the regional strategy after the national strategies had been completed, but reversed the order after project implementation began. This product provides a great opportunity to raise awareness of IAS issues and advance IAS work in the Caribbean region. However, in order to be effective it needs to provide clear, well-organized direction and measurable milestones. It also needs to garner the support and engagement of governments, intergovernmental organisations, and non-governmental stakeholders at the highest levels. The MtR Reviewer and other Regional Strategy reviewers still see substantial opportunities for product improvement. For example:

- From the perspectives of clarity and inspiring support, the document needs to make a far greater case for the urgent action on IAS – defining the issue, context, and impacts with case studies relevant to the region in ecological, economic, and human health terms.

- The document, much like the GEF project, does not adequately take into consideration the inherent

challenges in working in the Caribbean region. An ambitious vision is commendable, but not practical. Lessons learned from the GEF project about the challenges of programme/project management on a large scale need to be taken into consideration.

- Also like the GEF project, issues of sustainability are not well accounted for in a strategic manner. Considerable new institutional presence and capacity needs to be brought to bear to adequately address IAS in the Caribbean over the long-term.

- Terminology is not well-defined or used consistently throughout the document. In some cases this

translates into unclear meanings/messages and objectives. Throughout the document, there is a rather inconsistent alignment of objectives and activities with some duplication. Leadership roles and measures/milestones are not clearly marked out, making delegation of authority and accountability difficult to establish. A professional business-quality strategic planning approach (focused on well-formed outcomes and steps to meeting them) and a clear glossary of terms is warranted.

- The vision for engagement of countries beyond the five participating in the current GEF project needs to be made explicitly clear from the onset and plans/mechanisms for establishing formal and informal partnerships need to be included.

- Structural organisation is rather confusing. Clear delineation of roles and responsibilities (annotated diagram) is needed. It is not clear why two different action plans are included in the document – one consistently enacted action plan with sufficient detail (see previous comments on action plans) is appropriate.

- Although the ecosystem approach is explicitly acknowledged, the document is not well-nestled in the

guiding framework of the CBD or other international bodies which provide direction to their member


governments. The CBD has recently developed a toolkit on incorporating the work on other international organisations into National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plans (NISSAPs). This tool should be taken into account if further revision of the Regional Strategy becomes feasible.

Although the Reviewer recognises that considerable work has gone into the Regional Strategy and commends those who have been actively involved, the Reviewer is of the opinion that the document needs to be professionally edited by individuals with both expertise in strategic planning and approaches to IAS prevention/management at regional and national levels. Ideally the final regional strategy will establish a compelling vision and practical steps to achieving it for more than a four year period; a decade is more appropriate for a regional strategy, assuming it has mechanisms for monitoring and adaptive management built in. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

2. CIASNET.org (Outcome 3)

The Caribbean Invasive Alien Species Network (CIASNET) website was launched in mid 2011. According to the mid-term goals it should be fully available for internal use and linkages to other websites (e.g., IABIN) should be operational. The CIASNET.org site has the potential to be one of the gems of the GEF project and one of the most important project legacies. Unfortunately, interviewees expressed considerable disappointment in the appearance, functionality, and overall administration of the website. The Reviewer concurs that that website revision is desirable in the near term. In order to be effective the website needs to:

- Have a clearly defined target audience(s) and entry points for these users.

- More clearly establish the importance of IAS issue and purpose of the website on the front page. The services the website provides need to be set out on the front page as well.

- Be attractive in terms of colour, images, and layout. The current site does not reflect an understanding of the various studies on attracting, motivating, and empowering the primary target audience(s) through design elements.

- Be user friendly. The material on the website is laid out more like a blog format rather than a portal/clearing-house. This makes it very difficult to strategically access information. The search engine is inconsistent in its ability to find information known to be on the website. A more logic-based design structure is needed.

- Deliver the information needs of the target audience(s) in a timely and quality manner. National coordinators report that making time to contribute to the website is a challenge and that when they do submit information there is often a considerable time lag before posting. Interviewees have also observed that documents are posted with errors and that it is not easy to get these documents corrected or removed once they have been uploaded. Website administration needs to be addressed. Ideally, website management should be under the auspices of a communications expert. Various software tools exist that could easily give National Coordinators direct control over their content (e.g., Contribute).

- Transmit information in a manner that is most likely to actually be communicated to the target audience. Information transfer in the Caribbean region is more likely to be successful through images and sound, rather than text formats. Podcasts, videos, and other multi-media tools need to be built into the website as primary communication tools.

- Interface with other websites that support the informational intent of CIASNET. This has not yet been accomplished. CIASNET should develop a capacity for serving as a portal for inter-operable IAS websites in the region and link to other IAS portals (see examples below).

The Reviewer recommends that a task group be established to invite input on CIASNET.org for near-term revision, and that this task group collaborate with a team of individuals who have expertise in social marketing, website design, and communication psychology to improve the website.


Although none of these websites are ideal, they could be useful models for various aspects of a CIASNET revision:

- http://www.nobanis.org/ - http://www.cbd.int/invasive/ - http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/index.html - http://www.invasivespecies.gov/ - http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/

Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

3. Lionfish Projects (Outcomes 3 & 5)

Interviewees consistently pointed to the work on lionfish as among the top project accomplishments to date. The Bahamas and Jamaica explicitly include lionfish control/outreach in their pilot projects. Saint Lucia has actively been working on lionfish prevention/awareness as a substantial project element. Trinidad & Tobago and the Dominican Republic don’t have large-scale lionfish activities, but have incorporated the issue into other activities/outreach materials. Although it remains to be seen if lionfish can actually be controlled or prevention can be achieved where they have not yet established, the lionfish work has already proven valuable in several regards:

- Raising awareness of the IAS issue more broadly by serving as a “poster child;”

- Establishing a network of communication and cooperation among countries and between governments and a wide array of NGOs;

- Garnering attention from and engagement of stakeholders from the local to the regional level, including decision makers and partner organisations that have the potential to support regional work on IAS over the long-term;

- Coupling IAS control/management with sustainable livelihood/employment initiatives;

- Facilitating actual changes in human behaviour that could substantially lessen the impact of the target species; and

- Collecting and disseminating scientific data that serve the information needs of any country challenged with lionfish invasion.

More information on the numerous outputs from the lionfish projects can be found in Annexes 3, 8, 9, and 10. The Reviewer would have liked to have seen at least one pilot project topic in aquatic/marine and terrestrial ecosystems that was shared (co-implemented) by all countries. Not only would this have facilitated “on-the-ground” achievements, but more deliberately built the infrastructure necessary to enact a regional-approach to IAS. The lionfish work demonstrates the substantial value of a shared topic of concern when projects are to be explicitly regional in scope. The Reviewer encourages the lionfish project teams to consciously focus on both the species and the secondary infrastructure-building gains that are coming from the project. A sustainability plan with both national and regional components needs to be developed. Drafters should consider linking to hemisphere-wide lionfish prevention and control activities. Rating – Satisfactory

4. Other pilot projects (Outcomes 4 & 5 and Annex 8)

An ambitious set of pilot projects was selected under the umbrella of the GEF Mitigating the Threats project. An overview of these projects and specific Reviewer comments on them can be found in Annex 8. The Reviewer will not provide additional specific details in the section, but rather provide a few overarching remarks.


The pilot project leads are clearly experienced and highly devoted individuals. In some cases, they were undertaking the pilot project activities long before their work was defined as a “pilot project” under the GEF grant. In most cases, however, the current leads for the pilot projects were not personally engaged in the conception of the pilot projects and had little input into their initial targets and design. This is unfortunate, as the initial choice of pilot projects and the vision for their execution was not particularly well conceived in several cases. One project has had to be dropped (Caulerpa taxifolia eradication/control) because the strain in question did not prove to be of invasion concern. According to interviewees, the identification of the strain was known before the GEF project went into implementation and communication with the project team has been less-than-ideal with regard to project termination and replacement (Trinidad & Tobago Marine IAS Public Awareness Campaign discussed below). Other projects have been substantially hindered by logistical constraints and/or have needed substantial revision because insufficient information was applied in the project design phase. It is apparent that the initial pilot project selection and design process was either lacking in sufficient technical guidance and/or this guidance was not carefully taken into consideration. Most of the challenges faced by the pilot projects should have been readily apparent to individuals with substantial expertise in IAS field work, particularly those used to working in remote areas in the developing world. The pilot project selection process would likely have benefitted from a clear set of criteria that provided practical boundaries and explicitly harnessed the catalytic potential of targeted exercises. Such criteria include: established baseline data and readily available information for project design; relative logistical ease for implementation (site access, technical support, equipment availability); ability to accomplish measurable “on-the-ground” impacts within four years (and ideally disseminate the results within this time period as well); highly visible activities/outcomes that are likely to increase awareness of the IAS issue and leverage further support (including substantial cash and in-kind resources); and outputs that can have a direct impact on policy making and management goals, actively facilitate stakeholder engagement at all levels (especially partnerships between government agencies and other institutions), train/employ local staff, foster infrastructure development at national and regional levels, and demonstrate potential for sustainability (based on leadership, visibility, financial leveraging, etc.). Personally, the Reviewer would have liked to have seen at least one pilot project that shared a species-focus among all five countries in the marine/aquatic and terrestrial environments. Another pilot project could have addressed a pathway of shared regional concern (e.g., tourism). A greater focus on building prevention infrastructure through the pilot projects would also have been preferable. Despite the challenges that the pilot projects have faced, valuable lessons have been learned and outputs (e.g., data collection and dissemination) have emerged (Annexes 8, 9). The project leads are to be commended for their tenacity and personal dedication to minimizing the risk and impact of IAS. Overall rating – Moderately Satisfactory

5. Trinidad & Tobago Marine IAS Public Awareness Campaign (new activity)

The Caulerpa taxifolia pilot project in Trinidad & Tobago has been “replaced” by a project entitled, “Mitigating the impact of aquatic IAS in Trinidad & Tobago through the increased awareness of key stakeholders.” Executing Agencies include the Research Division, Ministry of Food Production, Land & Marine Affairs (MFPLM) with assistance from the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA), the Environment Management Authority (EMA), and the Fisheries Division. Freshwater and marine IAS are a significant issue worldwide and among the toughest invasions to eradicate/control once established. There is much stakeholders can do to minimize the risk of aquatic bioinvasions once they know the issues and options for prevention. A project scoping document was read by the Reviewer and interviewees also commented on this project. Interviewees expressed concern that the Caulerpa project team was not informed of project replacement in a direct and timely manner, the leads for the new awareness campaign are not experts in public awareness campaign development and implementation, and that the project has not been particularly well conceived. The project document indicates that the public awareness campaign will focus on both marine and freshwater bioinvasions (note: “aquatic” generally refers to only freshwater issues in the IAS literature). The project aims to “mitigate and minimize the threats pose by aquatic IAS on our aquatic ecosystems through increase public awareness to reduce the risks associated with movement of people and goods in the introduction of aquatic IAS


on ecosystems such as coral reefs, rivers and mangroves, and industries such as fishing and tourism.” The stated specific objectives are:

1. To introduce a module on aquatic IAS into the curriculum of schools; 2. To assess the level of awareness of key stakeholders as it relates to aquatic IAS; 3. To increase the level of awareness of key stakeholders about aquatic IAS and their impacts; and 4. To assess the effectiveness of the awareness campaign and its success in effecting the behavioral change

of targeted stakeholders. Specific activities are listed as:

1. Development of a booklet on IAS for primary and secondary schools, which will be distributed through the IMA and EMA’s school programmes;

2. Integration of information on marine IAS into the IMA’s existing school programmes; 3. Survey to assess the level of awareness of key stakeholders as it relates to aquatic IAS 4. An informational campaign to heighten awareness yacht owners / operators about marine IAS and their

impacts; 5. A lionfish awareness and surveillance programme; and 6. Review of the effectiveness of the campaign and use of the information collected to develop future

awareness programmes. The work plan calls for the completion of project activities in June 2012. The Reviewer agrees with interviewees that this campaign would benefit from a more targeted approach and the input (if not leadership) of individuals/organisations with specific expertise in social marketing and pride campaign development/implementation. At the moment the “campaign” is a loosely knit collection of somewhat random activities that are not well integrated internally or with other project components. Numerous stakeholders are listed in the project document, yet the activities are not clearly linked to messaging and message delivery methods that are particularly impactful for these stakeholders groups. Measures of success will be difficult to obtain because baseline data is poor to non-existent. Changing human behaviour is a long-term process that requires sustained messaging and creative/evolving delivery over years, even decades. The time period allotted for this work is insufficient. The Reviewer recommends that: a) either the team work with groups such as RARE and PCI-Media Impact to develop a more strategically focused campaign that targets only one or two key stakeholder groups and shows strong potential for sustainability, or b) the project does not proceed and the resources that would be allocated to it are invested in other existing projects that are already having an impact and for which sustainability is likely to be achievable. If the project continues, it should be led by one or more organisations with professional expertise in campaign implementation. Models of aquatic IAS social marketing campaigns to review as models include:

- Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers: http://www.protectyourwaters.net/ - Don’t Spread Aquatic Invasive Species: http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/48221.html - Boat Cleaning Programme: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/ccbn/nonnative.html

Although focused on firewood rather than aquatics, the following campaign may be of benefit as a model:

- Don’t Move Firewood: http://dontmovefirewood.org/ Rating – Moderately Unsatisfactory Overall rating for Achievement of activities and Outputs – Moderately Satisfactory/Satisfactory


D. Catalytic Role and Replication

There was no detailed plan for project replication or spread throughout the region presented in the Project Document – which would have helped direct this project activity. The Regional Strategy developed as part of this project also lacks explicit treatment of these elements. At mid-term, it is the Reviewer’s opinion that it is too early to evaluate the replication potential of the project, or how much replication is warranted. IAS are a context specific issue and specific approaches used in one location are not necessarily transferrable – at least not without adequate testing and thorough evaluation. Certainly lessons learned from the project should be communicated widely, and applied internally as well. There is no clear plan to do this set out within the project Outcomes and the Reviewer strongly encourages the project team to develop an explicit plan for transferring lessons learned throughout the Caribbean, as well as for consideration by other regions. As a minimum, lessons learned should be shared through the CIASNET.org website and the CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM)/IAS Portal. The approaches used for eradication of vertebrate IAS are likely to be of particular interest to other islands throughout the world and would ideally be summarized and reported with the help of Island Conservation, the New Zealand Department of Conservation, and/or GLISPA. Project participants are encouraged to continue raising awareness of the project and transmitting lessons learned as they become available through conferences, workshops, and symposia (at nation, regional, and global levels), as well as publishing in popular press and peer-reviewed literature. Particular attention needs to be given to attracting the attention and buy-in of decision makings in the project countries and elsewhere. Without their interest and support the opportunities for the project to become self-sustaining, let alone serve as a catalyst, are minimal. Project participants should consider presenting a side-event on the project at the 16th meeting of CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Science, Technology, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in Montreal, Canada in late April/early Mary 2012. This meeting will have a focus on islands. This meeting also presents an ideal opportunity for project leads to inform policy makers at the Ministerial level about the project and its accomplishments. The Reviewer recommends that each country identify at least one Ministerial level action to be taken before and reported on as SBSTTA 16. There is also the likelihood that the CBD will hold a meetings for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) on IAS 2012. The project team should be poised to take full advantage of this meeting to network, share lessons learned, and analyse the work of other countries on IAS. The Reviewer would like to see the project leads proactively explore and learn from other island- and region-based work on IAS. Many project participants seem poorly-informed about work to build regional IAS capacities in other parts of the world, examples of work done to eradicate/control IAS on other islands, the existence of other IAS public education/outreach campaigns, and even prior work on IAS within the Caribbean region. The CIASNET.org portal needs to help fill these information gaps as soon as possible. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

E. Assessment monitoring and evaluation systems

1. M&E design

The Project Document sets out a brief and rather general Monitoring and Evaluation plan. It states that “The Project Results Framework…includes SMART indicators for each expected outcome as well as mid-term and end-of-project targets. These indicators, along with the key deliverables and benchmarks…, will be the main tools for assessing project implementation progress and whether project results are being achieved.” As noted previously in the Evaluation, the Reviewer believes that this methodology will under-report many project achievements and not give a clear picture of ecologically and economically meaningful impacts of the project on IAS. Several forms were provided in the project document for tracking, and National Coordinators have apparently received numerous additional forms to incorporate in monitoring tasks since the programme began. Some project


leads report that they do not yet understand some of the forms (including the Tracking Tools) and do their best to “make it up as they go.” The principal means of assessment of project performance will be the mid-term review and the terminal evaluations. The mid-term evaluation was originally scheduled for January 2011. Key roles for the International Project Steering Committee (IPSC) are not adequately defined in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. It is the Reviewer’s sense, largely based on comments made by interviewees, that the IPSC has needed to play a greater leadership role in providing technical evaluation and feedback in a timely manner to project participants. The UNEP Task Manager is identified as the lead for Project Implementation Reports (PIR) (Two have been conducted) and ensuring that the project incorporates feedback from the various professional sources of evaluation/recommendation. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

2. M&E plan implementation

It is the Reviewer’s understanding that activity/technical reports have, for the most part, been on-time throughout the first two years of the project. However, substantial time delays and inconsistency is present in the financial reporting – leading to considerable frustration among participants at every level of the project. Most project partners have found reporting to be an onerous task, and a few commented that they would not choose to engage in a GEF project again due to the level of reporting required. The term “in-kind services” was repeatedly called “unkind-services” by project participants in all three countries visited. The two Project Implementation Reports (PIRs) read by the Reviewer (for 2010 and 2011) are comprehensive and informative with an even assessment of the situation. On the whole the ratings given appeared justified although in some cases this Reviewer feels that they were perhaps a somewhat higher than warranted. Given the amount information provided to the Reviewer by the project participants late in the Evaluation process, it is challenging for this Reviewer to determine the accuracy of the degree (percentage) of achievement of Outputs presented as “Project implementation progress” of the PIRs. It appears that further guidance on the Tracking Tools in particular may be warranted, as some project partners appear to be confused about how to accurately complete them. Some project participants, particularly those involved in the pilot projects, report that the feedback they have received on project progress from the IPSC/regional coordinators is unnecessarily critical and impractical, rather than constructive and empowering. The Reviewer was permitted to see some examples and concurs in those instances – although the Reviewer has no way of determining how typical/consistent this approach to feedback has been. The Reviewer feels that the project is underutilizing the technical expertise available to the project both internally and externally to monitor progress and achieve adaptive management in a timely manner. The Reviewer recommends holding “project conferences” at least twice a year to report on and evaluate accomplishments from a technical perspective (outside technical experts could be invited and asked to fill out evaluation forms). Such “conferences” would also assist with internal project networking and capacity building dialogue. It would also be valuable to include pilot project leads and more people internal to project with substantial technical expertise at IPSC meetings. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

3. Budgeting and funding for M&E activities

The Reviewer has not been given any reason to believe that M & E funds have been insufficient thus far. Rating – Satisfactory


4. Long-term Monitoring

Long-term monitoring is not set out in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, nor the Sustainability section of the Project Document. This should be included in a well-targeted sustainability plan.

Rating – Moderately Unsatisfactory

F. Preparation and Readiness

Preparation and readiness for this particular project need to be considered in the context of issues broader than this particular project:



- Baseline data on biodiversity in the Caribbean is relatively poor, making both assessments of alien

species impact and project progress very difficult to measure.

- Because the introduction of alien species into the region has occurred extensively for more than a century, it can be difficult to ascertain which species are native vs. alien, as well as how “natural communities” should appear and function.





grants some single countries have received for work on IAS. The Reviewer would have liked to have seen more effort made in the project design/initiation phases to identify previous work done in the region and learn from IAS efforts that have taken place on islands in other parts of the world. For example, most project participants seem unaware of the resources available to them from the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP; www.gisp.org), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG; www.issg.org) and Invasive Species Initiative (ISI; http://iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/esaro/what_we_do/invasive_species/), and the CBD IAS Portal (www.cbd.int/invasive/). Among other things, the GISP website offers copies of reports on regional assessments/strategies development in other regions of the world, as well as a report of a workshop on IAS held in MesoAmerica and the Caribbean by IUCN in 2001: http://www.gisp.org/publications/reports/MesoAmerica.pdf. As stated previously, the logframe and indicators are not ideal for measuring actual impacts on IAS from either ecological or economic perspectives. Examples of evaluation challenges inherent in the logframe design include: There is no quantified baseline, the terms “mitigate,” “threat,” and “globally significant/significance” have not been defined for this specific project; the linkages between the project objective and the associated indicators/expected outcomes are not readily apparent in biological terms; indicators to measure actual changes in human behaviour that would minimize the risk of biological invasion and IAS impact over the long-term have not been included; and little emphasis was placed on measures to ensure sustainability of project results and


processes. Furthermore, it appears that the pilot projects were not selected based on a clearly defined set of “best practice” criteria carefully defined for the project context (budget, information base, technical capacity, and logistics), and either there was inadequate technical advice provided during the project planning phase or the technical advice was not well incorporated in some cases. For the most part leadership capacity seems to be Satisfactory for the project, despite staff turnover at all levels of the project. National Coordinators in Jamaica and Saint Lucia are particularly well regarded by their colleagues. The Reviewer recommends further assessment of these successes so that the lessons learned can be captured and transferred as needed in other countries. Two capacity issues stand out and warrant further evaluation by the Task Manager:

1. Numerous interviewees felt that regional leadership has not been proactive enough from multiple perspectives, including raising visibility of the project, bringing key stakeholder to the table, keeping project participants well-informed and engaged, and providing/facilitating constructive technical and logistical support.6

2. Interviewees in The Dominican Republic indicated that the National Steering Committee7 is not fully operational and that work is not proceeding in an effective manner. They indicated a lack of direction and ownership over the project.

Several current project partners indicated that they felt underutilized and undervalued by project leadership. They expressed an interest in being far more engaged and better informed about the project objectives and overall activities. Some individuals listed as project partners to contact for the review indicated that they had not actually been engaged in the project at a level that enabled them to participate in the review process. It’s the Reviewer’s observation that information seems to be flowing “up” well, but is not flowing as well back “down” to the project partners (especially those engaged in the pilot projects). Interviewees and the Reviewer also see considerable opportunity to bring more partners to the table (Appendix 9, see section on Opportunities). The “Mitigating the Threats” project is rather ambitious given its context, timeframe, and budget. The Reviewer is concerned that the participants are spread too thin and that people at all levels of the project report being overloaded and under stress. This situation is likely to end up producing numerous outputs with questionable effectiveness on IAS. It is in the best interest of the project to determine how to better support the project staff and partners and to consider refocusing some of its efforts to do fewer activities with a greater capacity for impact. For example, it may be wise not to implement the new Trinidad & Tobago Aquatic IAS Public Awareness Campaign and to put those resources into supporting existing projects and/or helping to secure sustainability for one or more other projects. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

G. Country ownership/driveness

National ownership of the project is critical to success of the GEF project and long-term sustainability of key project elements. Country ownership/drive seems to be well established among the National Coordinators (although see previous comments about concerns voiced in The Dominican Republic) and IPSC participants. Concern was voiced in each country that ownership has not yet been established at the highest political levels and that IAS is simply not a matter of policy priority. Interviewees expressed the desire/need for regional and national coordinators to take more proactive measures to raise awareness of the project and inspire ministerial-level support for IAS as an important and urgent matter. As commented on elsewhere in the Evaluation, concerns also exist among interviewees that not enough has been done to garner ownership and leadership of NGOs, IGOs, and academic institutions. Ideally these organisations would provide advisory and technical support roles to government agencies. In the context of this project, relationships with these stakeholder groups could be strengthened, as appropriate, through inclusion on regional

6 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, CABI indicated that they have provided considerable proactive technical support and are at their capacity to provide support at this time. They felt the Evaluation did not fully reflect their contributions. The Reviewer had requested written information on CABI’s particular contributions, but did not receive a response. 7 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, the National Coordinator expressed surprise at this statement and provided sign-in sheets indicating that the Steering Committee has had multiple meetings.


and national technical advisory committees/working groups, as consultants for specific project elements, and as executing partners for relevant project elements. Partnering with other organizations has the potential to leverage (“partnership leveraging”) numerous resources, including information, project personnel, and funding. Partnership leveraging is, thus far, an underutilized approach for implementation of this project. The good news is that highly dedicated individuals are engaged at all levels of the project and project partners have expressed an interest and willingness to get more involved. Substantial opportunities to broaden ownership and leadership exist, but there is a need to capitalise on these valuable resources. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

H. Stakeholder participation/public awareness

The Project Document includes a section on “stakeholder mapping and analysis.” Rather than providing a true “analysis” of potential IAS stakeholder in the region (particularly those impacted by IAS and/or facilitating their spread), the Project Document provides a list of the regional partners and their roles (Table 2) and a brief description of partner capacities, which largely focuses on CABI, the project Regional Executing Agency.

Table 2: Regional Partners and their Roles

Partner agency Role Date of Letters of Commitment

CABI Caribbean and Latin America (CLA)

• Preparation and submission of the FSP proposal and implementation

• Active lobbying for co-finance with a wide range of stakeholders

• Continued stakeholder liaison and networking (electronic and in person) to maintain current momentum of interaction created during PDF-A at national, regional and global levels

• Attendance of relevant meetings for continued stakeholder sensitisation and building of partnerships, i.e. through CBD, CISWG and GISP

• Support PPG management and implementation

18 June 2007

Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

• Publicity at relevant meetings and in relevant bodies, e.g. CISWG

• Support to policy and legislative regime including harmonisation of Plant and Animal Health Legislation

• Support for infrastructure development

• Advocacy for strategies for managing IAS in the CARICOM countries

• Support or development of mechanisms for coordination of IAS issues

26 November 2008

Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES)

• Provide training through the delivery of short courses

• Supervise student research projects in areas relevant to the project

22 June 2007 and 10 November 2008

Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group (CISWG)

• Assist the 12 countries represented in CISWG, which include four of the five GEF pilot countries, with the development and implementation of national invasive species strategies (Components 1, 4 & 5 of GEF project)

• Collaborate with CABI on the further development of CISWG’s CRISIS to cover also IAS of primarily environmental importance, including aquatic IAS (Component 2)

• Continue to organise regular (at least annual) CISWG meetings at which the GEF initiative will be invited to share experiences with all attending CISWG members (Component 3)

• Provide access to CISWG’s d-groups on priority IAS for interested project partners for regular information exchange (Component 3)

13 June 2007 and 19 November 2008



• Coordinate the further development of the Caribbean Invasive

Species Surveillance and Information Programme (CISSIP) (Components 2 & 3) with CABI

• Influence policy makers to endorse and collaborate with the GEF initiative, e.g. with the relevant CARICOM bodies and/or Governments (Component 2)

Caribbean Taxonomic Network (CARINET) and Caribbean Pest Information Network CARIPESTNET

• Diagnostic services, staff involvement (arthropods, micro-organisms, nematodes, molluscs, weeds)

• Design and development of a searchable database for IAS photo gallery

• Capacity building – regional training workshop

21 June 2007

• Active participation in CISWG meetings and associated activities

• Miscellaneous – meetings, surveys, office supplies

12 November 2008

Council of Presidents of the Environment (COPE)

• Communication and dissemination of information, especially to Non-Governmental Organisation (NGOs) in Trinidad & Tobago

Offer made during PDF-A and PPG stakeholder workshops, 22-26 Jan 2007 and 29 Sept. – 3 Oct., 2008, respectively

Environmental Law Institute (ELI)

• Include an invasive species expert as a presenter at the ELI’s judicial training for judges in the insular Caribbean project

• Feature the invasive species issue in the moot court exercise as part of the judicial training for judges in the insular Caribbean

• Include appropriate materials on invasive species in the course book provided to the judge participants

17 December 2008

Florida A&M University (FAMU) – Center for Biological Control

• Active participation in CISWG meetings and associated activities 16 June 2007

• Research on priority invasive pest threat – mainly insects.

• Development and deployment of lucid identification tools.

• Development of human capital through training.

• Contribute to the development of regional safeguarding strategies through active participation in CISWG and other regional networks.

2 December 2008

FAO • Knowledge sharing

• Global Networking

• Participation in CISWG meetings

• Technical support, back-stopping

28 November 2008

Global Invasive Species Programmeme (GISP)

• GISP training materials and publications

• Networking electronically and at relevant meetings

22 June 2007

• Global networking, both electronically and by attendance of relevant meetings

• Raising awareness of the threat posed by invasive species and promoting the proposed project through GISP’s global network

• Provision of training materials and publications

• Facilitating the transfer of results and output from the project into policy recommendations

24 November 2008

InGrip Consulting and Animal Control (Germany)

• Work worldwide on control and eradication of terrestrial invasive alien vertebrates and exotic ants

• Strong interest in conservation of native species which are under threat of IAS, e.g. sea turtles, iguanas, snakes, seabirds, doves and the last endemic mammal spp. of the terrestrial Caribbean (the

21 June 2007



hutias)

• Training of governmental and non-governmental staff and conservation workers in techniques of permanent control or eradication of terrestrial invasive vertebrates

• Assistance in setting up monitoring schemes for future protection of cleared areas and the prevention of new invasions by invasive animals at these sites

• Facilitation in establishment of contacts or partnerships and assistance at seeking funds or donations for urgent projects and practical field work against invasive species

Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA)

• Research (e.g. physical monitoring, desk studies of databases) on Perna viridis and Caulerpa taxifolia

• Training, public awareness and dissemination of information on MIS

06 July 2007 See also Govt of Trinidad &Tobago letter 13 January 09

Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network’s (IABIN) Invasives Information Network (I3N)

• Contribute to the development of this proposal at a level according to the level of support from the PPG.

• Provide IABIN Invasive Information Network (I3N) Standards and Protocols on IAS data exchange for the Caribbean region

• Train users in the Caribbean on IAS issues and I3N tools

• Adapt the I3N tool to risk analysis and pathway analysis to Caribbean priorities

• Administer an IAS content building grant for the Dominican Republic

19 June 2007

1 December 2008

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA)

• Provide technical support for the FSP phase of the project

• Attendance and participation in the FSP International Stakeholders Workshop

• Attendance and participation in CISWG meetings

• Provide technical support to countries on controlling, managing and/or eradicating IAS that are plant and animal pests

• Dissemination of relevant information

• Stage and/or participate in seminars, workshops or special activities on IAS

• Make available the IICA country offices for seminars, workshops, meetings and special activities

• Provide secretarial support, materials and equipment such as computers, printers, fax machines, paper and CDs.

13 June 2007 and 8 December 2008

The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Managing IAS that are threatening important biodiversity:

• Application of the ecosystem approach

• Invasion reduction and the restoration of affected systems

• IAS knowledge management

• Support to GISP

28 June 2007

Regional Activity Centre - Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Information and Training Centre (RAC/REMPEITC)

• Capacity building; i.e. inform of courses and workshops undertaken by GloBallast in the region, if possibly invite persons in Island states IAS project as observers

• Exchange guidelines etc. developed by GloBallast i.e. GloBallast water course; Guidelines for rapid assessment of current status; Guidelines for national BW management system; Model legislation and training thereof; Compliance, monitoring and enforcement models and indicators; Port baseline survey protocols; Database design criteria

• Assist countries with ratification of Cartagena convention and SPAW protocol, which instrument can be used as a legal basis of the response of the IAS issue

21 June 2007

• Assist Lead Partner Countries on GloBallast project with a view to 26 November



share the knowledge gained regarding the implementation of BW management initiatives in the region

• Organise a regional BW management meeting in 2009. The targeted countries for this activity are: Jamaica, Venezuela, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, and Barbados. Additional; countries may be included if more funding materialises

2008

The Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods, Trinidad & Tobago (SUSTRUST)

• Assist in project development, implementation and evaluation in areas related to biodiversity and natural resources management.

• Access to human resources in various disciplines across the Caribbean through network of professionals across the Caribbean, including senior officers in government, intergovernmental and non-governmental agencies.

11 November 2008

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Policy specialists will contribute recommendations for IAS prevention:

• Participation of programme staff in national planning and strategic activities for the Bahamas

• Capacity assistance on invasives species management in national parks (e.g., Melaleuca quinquenervia) in the Bahamas;

• Participation of programme staff in national planning and strategic activities for the Dominican Republic

• Identification and prioritization of specific pathways for the movement of invasive species within the Caribbean and Meso-American region

• Policy assistance through the development and dissemination of a national model invasive species strategy and integration of regional priorities into the upcoming in depth review of invasive alien species under the Convention on Biological Diversity

• Information assistance on national invasive species databases through the Nature Conservancy’s work with the Inter-American Biodiversity Information

18 July 2007

• The Bahamas: Involvement and support in IAS pilot projects (2009-13)

• The Dominican Republic: Involvement in the development and implementation of priority national IAS activities (2009-13)

• Regional: Sponsorship of a regional workshop to establish a learning network on IAS and fire management (2009)

• Regional: Support for regional coordination, particularly involvement in and follow up to an international workshop sponsored by the Conservancy and the government of New Zealand on Islands and Invasives: Regional Island Coordination to Manage Invasive Species Threats (2010)

• General: Support to project countries on technical, policy and information management issues from regional and international staff (2009-13)

1 December 2008

United Nations Environment Programmeme – Caribbean Environment Programmeme (UNEP-CEP)

• Capacity building and training activities in the marine sector, focusing on Marine Protected Areas

• Development of National Strategies for SPAW Contracting Parties

• Establishment of region-wide cooperation programme

• Capacity building for management and early detection of marine systems

14 June 2007

27 November 2008

University of Florida – Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-

• Provide technical input and support to CISWG to further elaborate and implement CRISIS and the operational component of this strategy, which is CISSIP

25 June 2007

• Financial support for selected Caribbean regional participants to participate in the annual T-STAR invasive species symposium as a

8 December 2008



IFAS)

concurrent session with the annual Caribbean Food Crop Society (CFCS) meeting

• Support the hosting and facilitate the meeting of CISWG concurrent with the annual CFCS meeting

• Technical and research support for Red Palm Mite management and mitigation

• Coordination of Caribbean regional activities involving IAS through the UF-IFAS office on International Programmes, which serves as the principal point of contact

United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS)

• Support to the Annual Caribbean Plant Health Director's Meeting

• Support to the meetings and related projects of the associated working groups

• Support to the fruit fly trapping programme for the Caribbean

19 December 2008

University of the West Indies (UWI)

Research on marine invasive aspects of the project; these will include:

• Contributions to the data on marine biodiversity (NBSAP) for Trinidad & Tobago , from baseline surveys in coastal and marine areas

• Generating support for the project from marinas and ports in Trinidad & Tobago where pilot project may be located

• Co-ordinate and supervise student research projects on marine invasives (e.g. attached fauna or BW studies)

• Support for key staff member/s to attend appropriate workshops

22 June 2007 See also Govt of Jamaica letter 13 January 2009

An updated list of project partners/roles would be a useful tool for project management and should be made available on CIASNET.org. Some of the partners listed in Table 2 (e.g., GISP) are no longer operational. Others (e.g., IABIN) are going through financial transitions and their future in uncertain. Several of these “partners” report that they have either not been engaged in the project to date or only marginally so (e.g., IABIN, IUCN). A few of the partners that have been engaged report that there is a need to strengthen these partnerships:

- Roles and responsibilities in the partnership need clarification in some cases, including in the context of written agreements.

- Partners report being relatively uninformed about the overall project vision and direction. Several of them were unaware of the CIASNET.org website or other means of getting information on project activities.

- Several partners also reported feeling under-engaged and poorly utilised in roles through which they could and would like to make greater contributions. There is, for example, a clear opportunity to engage more faculty and students from the university system in project execution and advisory capacities.

The Reviewer is aware that there are also organisations that have supported aspects of the project that are not identified in regional partners table (e.g., Island Conservation). There seems to be substantial need and room to bring additional partners into the project, especially partners that can help create a foundation for IAS programme sustainability in the region. Two such potential partners already mentioned in the Evaluation are RARE and PCI – Media Impact. Project stakeholders are not limited to “partner organisations.” Some of the pilot project leads have excelled at engaging local communities in their work (e.g., lionfish in Jamaica and the Bahamas, donkey/goat consultations


in the Dominican Republic) as well as working with school children and teachers. These constitute substantial project accomplishments and are to be further encouraged. The Reviewer would like to see the project team conduct a more technical analysis of stakeholders on a national and regional level. This should primarily seek to identify those people/groups who are:

- Most impacted or potentially impacted by IAS from ecological, economic, and human health perspectives;

- Most likely to be introducing (through entry and site-based introduction) IAS and facilitating their

spread (linked to particularly pathways;


These could be cross-referenced to particular ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, marine), pathways/sectors, approaches for prevention/eradication/control, and messages/delivery systems. An analysis of this kind would provide useful direction for and reference within IAS strategies and action plans at national and regional levels. Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

I. Financial Planning

Inadequate opportunity was provided to thoroughly review the project’s financial planning. Financial reports were not received until very late in the project evaluation process. These are included in Annexes 4, 5, and 6. GEF allocation: US$3,034,027 PDF GEF Cost: US$225,000 PDF co-financing: US$478,222 Expected MSP/FSP: US$3,379,367 Total Cost: US$7,116,616 Thus far the project participants have been successful in achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. There is reason to believe that they can continue to be highly successful in this regard. According to the Project Funds Manager, the project received US$ 1,312,421 as of 30 September, 2011 from the GEF Trust Fund (includes a PDF-A grant of US$200,00) and raised US$682,622 of in-kind financing, US$447,533 of cash co-financing and US$369,346 of leveraged co-financing, giving a total of US$1,499,501 in co-financing as of 30 June 2011. Interviewees have stated that co-financing is actually being under-reported due to time constraints and thus the project is leveraging more (potentially 25% more according to some project participants) than is being documented. In reviewing the Annexes 4-6, the Project Funds Manager notes:

1. The original budget was used as final approval of the revised Year 2 budget submitted earlier this year

has not yet been received.

2. Co-financing report form: not sure what the last 2 columns "Total Disbursement" represent. Audits (2) have apparently not pointed to any concern in the financial planning/management procedures. Project participants do report that financial management has been a substantial challenge and continues to be a source of angst (especially where co-financing is concerned). Based on communication from the Project Funds Manager, it appears that the countries are not on the same reporting schedules. Delays are apparently common, as is under reporting of in-kind services (see comment above) because project leadership does not want to unduly burden project partners for fear of losing their participation. From the Project Funds Manager:


The deadline for submission of the annual report on co-finance is 31 July 2011. Unfortunately, though not a contractual UNEP requirement, all countries do not report on co-finance monthly as requested by the Regional Coordinator: Bahamas - monthly reports on national and collaborators Dominican Republic - reports annually as per Project Coordination Agreement (PCA) Jamaica - reports monthly on national St Lucia - monthly reports on national and collaborators Trinidad & Tobago - reports annually as per PCA The next quarterly report on expenditure using GEF financing was due for submission to UNEP on 31 October 2011 for expenditure to 30 September 2011. This information was not included in the finance summaries received from CABI in November 2011. The Reviewer took note of three additional financial planning/management concerns during the interview process:

1. Interviewees report that funds are largely or even totally unspent in some project categories. The status of unspent funds needs to be evaluated as soon as possible and, where appropriate, these funds directed toward other project elements.

2. Apparently there have been instances in which project partners have been “called out” in written letters to their supervisors when financial reports have been delayed. This has unnecessarily created professional challenges for project partners and undermined trust in the regional project leadership.

3. Several individuals, in multiple countries, sited the lack of a “granting mechanism” as a barrier to timely project implementation. The possibility of establishing granting mechanisms should be explored.

Rating – Moderately Satisfactory

J. Implementation approach

The Project Document includes sections entitled “Institutional Framework and Implementation Arrangements” and “Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.” It does not include a single section explicitly focused on the “implementation approach.” The Reviewer requested an up-do-date organisational chart but it was not received. The project implementation mechanisms outlined in the Project Document are:

- CABI serves at the Executing Agency (EA) and is responsible for project implementation in accordance with the goal/objectives/activities outlined in the Project Document. CABI is to cooperate with UNEP (the Implementing Agency) in such a manner that enables UNEP to fulfil its obligations to the GEF.

- Each participating country is said to have a National IAS Expert/Coordinator (NC), a staff member from the National Executing Agency, a national administrative/accounting assistant (to be hired by the project part time or full time), and Technical Advisors/Subject Matter Specialists.

- CABI oversees the project management team located its Caribbean/Latin American office in Trinidad. The Project Coordinator and a Funds Project Manager are part of this team.

- A project advisory panel, to include Technical Advisors from CABI, supports project management.

- The project management team is required to establish reporting guidelines for all partners and ensure that reporting is accomplished in a timely and complete manner, make regular site visits, schedule regular stakeholder meetings/site visits.

- A Project Steering Committee is designated to receive periodic reports on progress and make recommendations to UNEP concerning the need to revise any aspects of the Results Framework or the Monitoring & Evaluation Plan.


According to interviewees, there is considerable gratitude for CABI’s willingness to serve as regional EA for this project. The amount of effort required to manage a project of this magnitude on a relatively small budget is recognised by the project participants and the Reviewer. The regional project team, National Coordinators, and pilot project leads are clearly dedicated to this project and investing considerable time and effort in its execution. The International Project Steering Committee (IPSC) met in 2009 and 2010 (29 October 2009; 12 October 2010). The October 2010 meeting pragmatically decided (official decision) to delay the next IPSC meeting to early 2012 to allow consideration of this scheduled mid-term evaluation. Training courses held after these meetings received mixed reviews from interviewees. National Coordinators8 and pilot project leads have apparently not yet had the opportunity to visit several project sites and have indicated that they would find this quite valuable in understanding the overall project and contexts in which their colleagues are working. They see it as an opportunity to learn key lessons about project implementation and identify opportunities for increasing information transfer, sharing of technical support, and envisioning possibilities for/challenges to sustainability. Interviewees expressed the following as primary needs for improvement of project implementation:

- Greater proactive effort made at the regional and national level to raise the visibility of the project, especially with key policy makers;

- More proactive leadership at regional and national levels in engaging partners/stakeholders, especially those individuals and organisations who can provide technical expertise and support programme sustainability;

- Better communication from the regional leadership to all other project participants and partners about project vision and activities;

- Increased access to relevant data, tools, and other sources of information by the regional coordination team. Presumably CIANET.org is intended to help in this regard;

- A high level of technical and logistical support (e.g., procurement) from regional project management,

and feedback on activities (especially pilot projects) that is delivered in a more constructive manner with open dialogue and transparency.

- More frequent meetings of the IPSC, ideally including the pilot project leads, and better/more timely report out of these meetings to all project participants/partners.

- Greater clarity and consistency in reporting requirements (see other comments on financial management).

- Creation of opportunities for greater networking, information exchange, and technical guidance among project participants. A couple of interviewees suggested that a project “conference” is held twice a year. An additional possibility is to hold Skype conferences focused on selected project activities each month or two.

According to the Project Document, project supervision is to take an adaptive management approach. This is to happen through reporting to the UNEP Task Manager and subsequent project revision based on the Task Manager’s direction. Minutes of the 2009 IPSC largely indicate that the meeting was used to review the operational structure of a GEF IAS project in Africa9, establish the ToR for the IPSC, and make reporting assignments. The minutes of the 2010 IPSC provide brief overviews of country-level challenges in project implementation and a summary of Action Points to be undertaken between meetings. Most of the actions identified are rather minor (e.g., completing reports) and do not provide specific direction for addressing the challenges identified by the National

8 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, the UNEP Task Manager noted that National Coordinators have had the opportunity to visit project sites during IPSC meetings in Jamaica and St. Lucia. 9 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, CABI emphasized that the purpose of this presentation was to provide to provide technical assistance to the Caribbean region through insight into the Africa project.


Coordinators. The Reviewer recommends more constructively using the IPSC meetings to: a) bring forward project accomplishments and challenges; b) document accomplishments and challenges; c) defining a strategy for promoting accomplishments to a wider audience, as appropriate; and d) making explicit recommendations/taking specific actions to overcome the challenges identified. Individuals with substantial technical expertise on IAS project management should be present at IPSC meetings – this should include the technical advisors that CABI is to provide, as well as pilot project leads. A few qualified individuals from outside the project may provide valuable non-biased input and assist with networking as needed. The interviewees did indicate the project adaption has taken place over the first two years of the project, particularly with regard to pilot project adjustments (Annex 8). Some individuals involved in the pilot projects have indicated that this process has not always gone as smoothly/constructively as they would have hoped and there were some concerns about the timeliness and transparency of communication. As stated previously, the Reviewer does not find the logical framework contained in the Project Document particularly useful for documenting the wide range of potential project accomplishments or measuring the actual effectiveness of the project in ecological or economic terms. Nevertheless, project participants generally report comfort in using the logical framework as a project management and communication tool. Rating - Satisfactory

K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping

UNEP, as the Implementing Agency, is responsible for oversight of the project. According to the Project Document, the Task Manager was to develop a project supervision plan at the inception workshop which would be communicated to the project partners. The emphasis of the Task Manager’s supervision was to be on outcome monitoring, but without neglecting project financial management and implementation monitoring. Project risks and assumptions are to be jointly monitored by the project partners and UNEP. Information collected during the Evaluation indicated that the UNEP Task Manager played has played an important oversight role during project implementation. Regional and national level coordinators openly expressed appreciation for Kristin McLaughlin’s leadership and support of this project. The Task Manager discussed and reviewed conducted two Project Implementation Reports (PIRs): 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010; 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011 which are consolidated by CABI with national executing agency input. These reviews appear to be thorough and contain detailed lists of project accomplishments. The progress ratings are somewhat higher than given in this Evaluation, but it is impossible to know if the same information was conveyed by interviewees during the assessments. It’s plausible, and not uncommon, for project participants to be more open with a Reviewer who is not directly tied to the project in question. The Task Manager has participated in the Project Inception Workshop and the IPSC operations. On 5-10 June 2011 she made a mission to The Dominican Republic to meet with project partners, the National IAS Committee and visit one of the pilot sites. A series of strong recommendations was made toward improved implementation and agreed upon by relevant project participants. The Task Manager has also created opportunities to meet with key project participants and partners when in the Caribbean primarily for other purposes. Rating – Highly Satisfactory

4 – Lessons Learned Although the project has only approached mid-term, the interviewees have identified numerous lessons learned/observations. These are organized below and more generally captured in Annex 9. Points made by several respondents are indicated with a “*” and placed at the top of the lists. Otherwise, they are in no particular order.

Administration

- *Needed better project concept planning, scheduling and execution in the project formulation phase.


- * It takes considerable time, money, logistical support and technical expertise to execute a project of

this nature. The support needs were not well-anticipated. Co-financing issues must be much better

understood before a project is initiated.

- *A gap exists between project concept and project implementation. A project needs to have flexibility



- *Need far greater, proactive promotion of the project and greater networking among interested parties.

- *People are spread too thin. The project needed to anticipate more resources for people dedicated just to

the project.

- *Need for more proactive and positive support by CABI in project activities, and greater direct


- *To be successful in the near and long-term, the project must have a dedicated project team/staff with

clear, focused objectives. Champions are key to project and regional network success. Champions are

not always the most technically sophisticated individuals – they are people who are highly influential.

Progress is highly dependent of the drive and enthusiasm of a few key individuals. Need champions at

all levels and across stakeholder groups.

- *Need more regional meetings in which everyone can get together who is interested in participating –



- *Doing the regional strategy first has helped to gain overall project visibility and buy in from high


- Local partnerships are vital to project success and local partners (individuals and institutions) should be

identified, encouraged, and promoted. They have an important role in project sustainability. The most

successful work effectively engages university and NGO experts.

- When you are working with organizations that have limited administrative flexibility, you can’t


- The challenges created by the language/cultural differences throughout the region should not be

underestimated.

- A collaborative approach is needed for project management and information sharing.

- There has been difficulty in convincing funders to put major money into the project.

- Reporting needs to be timely and is necessary to get the work to broader audiences.

- It is very important to clarify partnership arrangements, especially for written agreements.

- Need a project advocate at the highest levels of government.

- The project needs to take small steps that show measurable benefits and expand from there.

- It is important to be proactive when addressing IAS.

- More money is needed in the project budget to attract really good consultants.

- Transparency in project participation is very important. It helps get people on board.

- Broad, inclusive working groups help with ensuring overall interest and representation in the project,


- Linkages among Ministries/agencies are critically important. Cross-cutting working groups help, but


- Be realistic about personal/agency limitations. Projects need to be scaled to context (capacity) and


- Capacity Building/Communication

- *Whatever is generated from this GEF project needs to be shared throughout the region.

- Work on pests and diseases needs to be seen as a subset of the IAS umbrella.

- Need to be careful not to communicate conflicting messages to stakeholders.

- It is useful to break the issue down to terrestrial, freshwater, and marine components. It allows for more

targeted action and recommendations.

- A consultative process needs to happen frequently – bringing groups together to share ideas and build

capacity. Public consultation processes are more effective at building capacity than emails and reports.

- CABI and other technical groups need to be more helpful “on-the-ground.”


- Public education/outreach programmes need to be launched early in a project in order to build


- The people doing education/outreach need to have training/expertise in it. All too often it is done by


behaviour.

- Build alliances via attending various international and regional fora – provides benefits for technical


- Build national capacity via training in scientific and technical issues.

- International partners are important for technical support of the project and general capacity building.

- The co-finance reporting distracts from implementation. However, capacity-building of a business-like

approach to project management could help alleviate this problem.

- Be more selective about professional development for temporary staff. Invest in people with long-term

potential.

- Pilot Projects

- *The pilot projects have the potential to push broader programmes and organisations. They can also


- *Stakeholders are often unaware of the IAS and thus not aware of how than can contribute to the issue


- *Need better focus in the projects of what can be practically achieved. This should be a priority.

- *Contingency plans needed to be developed for the pilot projects early on.

- There is a need for far better feasibility studies and baseline information to inform the projects and


- Ensure that all the necessary information is collected about a site before going out to sample.

- Be prepared for any scenario – things don’t always go as planned. Project components may take longer

than anticipated.

- Top down approaches to eradication won’t work. The values of local people need to be carefully



- You need to “throw everything at it” when it comes to eradication/controlling an IAS.

- Multi-stakeholder partnerships serve to advance project objectives. Consult with as many stakeholders



when working with stakeholders and have the flexibility to explain things in terms they will understand.

- Hotels have proven to be good partners in the lionfish project. (Jamaica)

- Lionfish abundances seem to be lower than expected at some sites (near shore and some reef sites); it


removals. (Bahamas)

- Sustainability

- *Sustainability planning needs far greater emphasis and immediate attention.

- Long-term support for any project needs to be considered early in the project and be included in the


5. Recommendations

Recommendations to further strengthen the project’s outcomes and future projects are listed below. The Reviewer would like to stress that these are recommendations, not directives. It is not the Reviewer’s role to set an agenda for the project. It is up to the project participants to decide if these recommendations are of value to them in meeting their project goals. The project participants will also need to decide how to prioritize any recommendations they adopt in terms of timing, effort, and financial investment. Some countries may already be making strides toward achieving these recommendations, while other countries may feel that their focus is better directed toward other activities. Recommendations aimed at regional action will be most effectively achieved with the full support of all of the participating countries.


According to interviewees, existing project funds are being spent behind projected rates. In some cases this is due to changes in project direction. In other instances the reasons for lack of fund allocation are not readily apparent. The Reviewer recommends that the status of allocated/unspent monies be assessed as soon as possible and, as appropriate, available funds applied towards recommendations or other priority activities in order to ensure that they are efficiently used during the term of this project. FOR PROJECT PARTICIPANTS IMMEDIATE ACTION

1. Although the Reviewer recognises that considerable work has gone into the Regional Strategy and commends those who have been actively involved, the Reviewer finds that further work is warranted. The document needs to be professionally edited by individuals with both expertise in strategic planning and approaches to IAS prevention/management at regional and national levels. Ideally the final regional strategy will establish a compelling vision and practical steps to achieving it for more than a four year period; a decade is more appropriate for a regional strategy, assuming it has mechanisms for monitoring and adaptive management built in. Given the volume of lessons that will undoubtedly be learned through implementation of the GEF project, the Reviewer recommends that the draft Regional

Strategy be a “living document” over the next two years and that it does not become final until it has received input and buy-in from a large percentage of the countries in the region. See page 43 for more details.

2. Effective Action Plans need to be developed to complement the IAS strategies at regional and national

levels. Although the existing Regional Strategy includes an “action plan” (actually two different ones), it is not likely to provide the direction necessary to implementers and should be replaced with a more business-oriented model. Effective action plans provide measurable goals, resource assessments, timelines, assignments of responsibility, means of accountability, and monitoring/adaptive management processes. These action plans should incorporate sustainability plans for key elements of the GEF project.

3. The CIASNET.org site has the potential to be one of the gems of the GEF project and one of the most important project legacies. Unfortunately, interviewees expressed considerable disappointment in the appearance, functionality, and overall administration of the website. The Reviewer concurs that that website revision is highly desirable in the near term, and therefore recommends that a project task group be established to collaborate with a team of individuals who have expertise in social marketing, website design, and communication psychology to improve the website. See page 44 for more details.

4. The Reviewer agrees with interviewees that the Trinidad & Tobago Aquatic IAS Public Awareness campaign would benefit from a more targeted approach and the input (if not leadership) of individuals/organisations with specific expertise in social marketing and pride campaign development/implementation. At the moment the “campaign” is a loosely knit collection of somewhat random activities that are not well integrated internally or with other project components. Numerous stakeholders are listed in the project document, yet the activities are not clearly linked to messaging and message delivery methods that are particularly impactful for these stakeholders groups. Measures of success will be difficult to obtain because baseline data is poor to non-existent. Changing human behaviour is a long-term process that requires sustained messaging and creative/evolving delivery over years, even decades. The time period allotted for this work is insufficient.

The Reviewer recommends that: a) either the team work with groups such as RARE and PCI-Media Impact to develop a more strategically focused campaign that targets only one or two key stakeholder groups and shows strong potential for sustainability, or b) the project does not proceed and the resources that would be allocated to it are invested in other existing projects that are already having an impact and for which sustainability is likely to be achievable. See page 46 for more details.

5. Before long-term sustainability can be secured (discussed below), immediate action needs to be taken to more appropriately distribute workloads (more staff, wider delegation of responsibilities, and/or adjustments to deliverables and timelines) and build sufficient staff technical capacity (especially for the pilot projects).


A. In cooperation with the Task Manager, a focused review of project staff needs and concerns should be conducted, and measures identified and implemented that address issues in a timely and constructive manner.

B. Capacity building needs identified by several project participants in multiple countries include:


- Social marketing/pride campaign development and implementation. These capacities would

help the public awareness/education initiatives more from merely providing information/knowledge to actually influencing human behaviour in a manner that substantially reduces the risk of IAS introduction and impact over the long-term.

- Risk analysis. Risk analysis is one of the most important tools in the prevention framework.

Capacity building in risk analysis has been identified as a priority by the CBD and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) standard setting bodies, among others. The project team should look to these fora for guidance and support (grants, tools, training, etc).

Ideally, training courses should be held for project participants and other interested parties that provide substantial technical capacity building on these topics. During the course of the interviewees, staff at UWI (Dr. Govind Seepersad) expressed an interest in hosting a training course on IAS economic analysis. For social marketing, the Reviewer suggests partnering with RARE and PCI-Media Impact. For risk analysis training and tool development, the Reviewer suggests working with Gordon H. Copp of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (Cefas) in the UK. The Reviewer is also willing to assist with these courses from a coordination, training, and fundraising perspective.

6. Project participants should consider presenting a side-event on the project at the 16th meeting of CBD’s Subsidiary Body on Science, Technology, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) in Montreal, Canada in late April/early Mary 2012. This meeting will have a focus on islands. This meeting also presents an ideal opportunity for project leads to inform policy makers at the Ministerial level about the project and its accomplishments. The Reviewer recommends that each country identify at least one Ministerial level action to be taken before and reported on as SBSTTA 16. There is also the likelihood that the CBD will hold a meetings for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) on IAS in March of 2012. The project team should be poised to take full advantage of this meeting to network, share lessons learned, and analyse the work of other countries on IAS.

7. Most of the challenges the pilot projects have been facing are already well recognised by the project teams. Additional comments are provided by the Reviewer in Annex 8. The Reviewer recommends that the project teams review these comments and make adjustments as appropriate. At the national and regional level, coordinators should make the explicit, immediate effort to reach out to pilot project leadership and evaluate their progress, concerns, and needs to overcome any perceived challenges. Substantial concern/needs should be addressed at the IPSC meeting in January 2012 and through follow up action as warranted.

ACTION OVER THE REMAINDER OF THE PROJECT

1. The CBD is in the process of drafting toolkits to guide the development and implementation of National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plan (NISSAPs). The toolkits will be complemented with NISSAP training courses. These are scheduled to become available in 2012. Also in early 2012, the CBD plans to coordinate a workshop for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) to exchange information on progress toward establishment of NISSAPs and the IAS component of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). CBD/SBSTTA 16 will have a focus on islands and provides an ideal opportunity for project leads to raise awareness of the project with high level officials, encourage one or more highly visible actions to be taken by policy makers in advance of SBSTTA, and hold a side event that serves to promote the project and announce the recent actions by the participating governments. Project partners should make plans to take full advantage of the toolkits, training courses, SIDS workshop, and SBSTTA 16 agenda. If funds permit, the Reviewer recommends that the project partners offer to host a CBD-organized NISSAP training course in the region. [Note: Although not yet


confirmed, there is a strong possibility that the CBD will also be developing toolkits and training courses focused on the pet trade pathway in 2012. As this is a topic of interest to multiple countries participating in the GEF project, the CBD’s work in this area should be closely monitored and project leads poised to engage as opportunities are identified].

2. A section on sustainability is included in the Product Document, but it is conceptual rather than

strategic. Although the project is at mid-term, the participants need to begin to collectively determine what they want to achieve as lasting outcomes of the project, chart a specific plan of action, and begin seeking the financial and technical resources necessary to not only maintain a consistent focus, but also garner an even greater level of visibility and political will within the governments. Ideally sustainability plans will become a component of the Regional Strategy and NISSAPs (see above). The Reviewer recommends including the following elements, as a minimum, in sustainability planning10: - Establishing CIASNET.org as an attractive, highly-effective IAS portal for the region.

- Finalizing the regional and national IAS strategies and coupling them with fully operational action

plans. These should be submitted to the CIASNET.org portal and CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CBD IAS Portal) for access by other interested parties.

- Establishing/improving national IAS databases using standards, formats, and protocols that will

enable them to be interoperable on regional and global levels. These should be accessible through CIASNET.org and data share with the Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), and new structures/opportunities to be created by the recently developed Joint Programme of Work on IAS Information under the CBD.

- Securing multi-sector and cross-agency IAS committees/working groups at the national level that

are sanctioned by the appropriate ministries (written into legislation where feasible), include participants who are well positioned to influence policy and provide technical expertise on IAS and programme management, and have as their explicit mission the implementation of IAS strategies and action plans.

- Ensuring that each government creates a permanent IAS National Coordinator position that is

placed in an appropriate ministry at a level high enough to have access to decision makers and direct programme/project implementation.

- Investing in the prevention infrastructure by securing the databases mentioned above, building

Customs and police officer training and expanding the inspection/enforcement services, providing identification tools to the inspection/enforcement services, demonstrating the cost-effectiveness of prevention through economic analyses, institutionalising risk analysis capacities, establishing prevention measures in law and policy (including codes of conduct), and establishing early detection/rapid response programmes for high risk IAS. The project teams are strongly encouraged to begin national and regional work on the tourism and pet trade pathways before the project ends and to make this a priority for continued worked throughout the broader Caribbean region.

- Ensuring the long-term implementation of public awareness and education campaigns that are

developed and lead by proactive, technically qualified individuals with expertise in social marketing and pride campaigns.

- Incorporating measures, as appropriate, into law and policy that allow for the eradication and

control of IAS on public and private lands, and that establish both incentives for IAS prevention/mitigation and severe penalties for violating IAS laws/regulations.

10 The Reviewer wants to emphasise that this list is a suggestion for concepts/actions to be included in

sustainability plans that have a vision that extends beyond the “Mitigating the Threats” project. The Reviewer does not envision that all of these items would be fully accomplished prior to the close of the current project. If a follow up GEF project grant is desired, the Reviewer recommends that these items be considered by the grant writers.


- Working with aptly qualified technical advisory teams to determine the appropriate future direction for the pilot projects and garnering support for future work plans. The future work plans should include explicit feedback loops for informing science-based decisions by policy makers.

3. Although prevention is the most cost-effective strategy for addressing IAS, the “Mitigating the Threats”

project places relatively little emphasis on prevention, and instead has dedicated a substantial portion of its pilot project resources to very logistically challenging control/eradication efforts that are (with some exception) unlikely to demonstrate substantial quantitative success by the closure of the project. In order to prevent new invasions from entering the participant countries and spreading through the region, prevention infrastructure needs to be built. This includes such things as: assessing known and potential IAS in the countries/region; identifying and ranking invasion pathways and identifying associated stakeholders; building a system of inter-operable national databases on IAS; expanding and training Customs staff; hiring and training appropriate staff in risk analysis procedures; creating effective social marketing campaigns directed at key stakeholders/pathways; enacting and enforcing prevention-based legislation and policy (including voluntary codes of conduct). Some concerted steps are being made by the countries toward prevention, but not yet in a sufficiently proactive, comprehensive, and strategic manner.

A. The Reviewer recommends that the project participants develop a comprehensive prevention

strategy vision/check list for each country and use it to analyse the current capacities and needs. This strategic vision and analysis should be built into regional and national IAS strategies and action plans. Steps for meeting some of these needs are addressed in other recommendations. The Reviewer recommends that project leads learn from the prevention capacities identified and being developed in other regions, especially the Pacific (e.g., http://www.pacificinvasivesinitiative.org/pii/index.html). The European Network on Invasive Alien Species (NOBANIS) is a good example of efforts to create database interoperability/portal on a regional level (http://www.nobanis.org/).

B. Within the more comprehensive vision for IAS prevention, three pathways of intentional and unintentional introduction need to strategically addressed at the regional and national levels: horticulture, tourism, and the pet/animal trade. As a minimum, a focus on these pathways should be included in regional and national IAS strategies and action plans. If the regional project team or individual country teams wish to accomplish more in this area over the next two years, clear opportunities exist for collaboration and partnership leveraging. For example, the CBD is currently undertaking work on the pet trade pathway and the project leads should contact Dr. Junko Shimura of the Secretariat ([email protected]) to express their interest in participating in relevant activities (e.g., sharing case studies, hosting training courses). Codes of conduct on horticulture have been developed by several different groups (e.g., see overview article: http://reach.ucdavis.edu/downloads/Burt_etal_2007_Biol_Inv.pdf). Sufficient expertise and examples exist such that the region could host a workshop focused on the horticulture pathway and approaches to address it. Most work with IAS and the tourism sector is from the agriculture perspective. A great opportunity exists for the region to establish leadership on approaches to working with the tourism industry and engaging the World Tourism Organisation on IAS issues. RARE and the CBD may be willing to collaborate in these efforts. [Note: The Reviewer also recognizes the importance of ballast water and hull fouling pathways and encourages the participating countries to work on these through International Maritime Organisation (IMO)]. The Reviewer is willing to help identify individuals and specific opportunities to help build the vision and capacity for more effective approaches to prevention in the Caribbean.

4. There is a clear need for project leadership to better inform all project participants and to better assess

and utilize the capacities of those individuals who are eager to contribute. Key gaps in stakeholder engagement or under engagement of stakeholder groups that were identified include: university faculty and students (in region and abroad); pet and tourism industries; experts with substantial experience in economic analysis and modelling, risk analysis, social marketing/pride campaigns (RARE was given as a specific example), and vertebrate species eradication; NGOs with technical and programme management expertise that could assist with sustainability; and potential funders. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF) has been suggested as a resourcing option, through the grants tend to be small.


A. The Reviewer feels that the project is underutilizing the technical expertise available to the project both internally and externally to monitor progress and achieve adaptive management in a timely manner. The Reviewer recommends holding “project conferences” at least twice a year to report on and evaluate accomplishments from a technical perspective (outside technical experts could be invited and asked to fill out evaluation forms). Such “conferences” would also assist with internal project networking and capacity building dialogue. It would also be valuable to include pilot project leads and more people internal to project with substantial technical expertise at IPSC meetings. Meetings on focused topics of interest via Skype every month or every other month would also facilitate networking and the sharing of technical expertise.

B. The Reviewer recommends that the project team conduct a more technical analysis of stakeholders

on a national and regional level. This should primarily seek to identify those people/groups who are:

- Most impacted or potentially impacted by IAS from ecological, economic, and human health

perspectives;

- Most likely to be introducing (through entry and site-based introduction) IAS and facilitating their spread (linked to particularly pathways;


These could be cross-referenced to particular ecosystems (terrestrial, freshwater, marine), pathways/sectors, approaches for prevention/eradication/control, and messages/delivery systems. An analysis of this kind would provide useful direction for and reference within IAS strategies and action plans at national and regional levels and identify stakeholders that need to be brought into the project in the near- and long-term.

5. In order to make the project as relevant and catalytic and possible, the project team should begin

drafting and implementing a strategic plan for transferring lessons learned, products, and capacities throughout the region. Lessons learned should be packaged and transmitted through a multi-media approach (e.g., reports, podcasts, training courses, the arts). Particular attention needs to be given to attracting the attention and buy-in of decision makings in the project countries and elsewhere. Without their interest and support, the opportunities for the project to become self-sustaining and serve as a catalyst are not particularly good. A. As a minimum, lessons learned should be shared through the CIASNET.org website and the CBD

Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM)/IAS Portal.

B. The approaches used for eradication of vertebrate IAS are likely to be of particular interest to other islands throughout the world and would ideally be summarized and reported with the help of Island Conservation, the New Zealand Department of Conservation, and/or GLISPA.

C. Project participants are encouraged to continue raising awareness of the project and transmitting

lessons learned as they become available through conferences, workshops, and symposia (at national, regional, and global levels), as well as publishing in popular press and peer-reviewed literature.

D. In addition to the CBD-CHM/IAS Portal, countries will ideally report, as relevant, on the

application of GEF project outputs towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Focal points for the various international organisations listed on pages 45-46 of the Project Document should be identified, kept well-informed about the project, and encouraged to find opportunities to transfer project lessons and outputs into this fora.

6. Climate change is projected to have a substantial impact in the Caribbean through multiple mechanisms.

Most studies indicate that the establishment and spread of IAS will be facilitated by climate change. Some of the pilot project sites and target species are likely to be directly impacted. The Reviewer recommends that project participants begin to familiarize themselves the literature on the projected impacts of climate change in the Caribbean region and the interactions between climate change and IAS. Relevant literature should be made available through the CIASNET.org website and one or more


training courses/conferences on the topic of IAS and climate change in the Caribbean are strongly encouraged. The regional and national IAS strategies and action plans need to carefully consider the role of climate change in IAS prevention, control, and eradication.

FOR UNEP IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE REGIONAL PROJECT TEAM

1. The Mid-term Reviewer highly recommends that relevant background documents are collected in advance of the terminal review and time demands are more carefully assessed. Up-to-date contact lists and a bibliography of key project documents would be helpful. The documents could be readily distributed on a CD. Ideally the Terminal Reviewer will have the financial support to visit all five countries. If this is not the case, visits inclusive of The Bahamas and The Dominican Republic are recommended.

2. The Reviewer would like to see better linkages made between the project Objective, Outcomes, and

Indicators and tangible/measurable progress in to effectively address IAS in biological and economic terms. Measurable changes in relevant human behaviour would be more meaningful than measuring changes in public awareness as awareness does not necessarily translate into sustained behaviour change. Although it is likely too late in the project to make substantial changes to the logframe, the Reviewer recommends tying measurable biological and/or economic values to the logframe elements wherever feasible.

3. The Reviewer recommends that the Task Manager provide further evaluation/input on several capacity issues raised during the review:

A. The “Mitigating the Threats” project is rather ambitious given its context, timeframe, and budget.

The Reviewer is concerned that the participants are spread too thin and that people at all levels of the project report being overloaded and under stress. This situation is likely to end up producing numerous outputs with questionable effectiveness on IAS. It is in the best interest of the project to determine how to better support the project staff and partners and to consider refocusing some of its efforts to do few activities with a greater capacity for impact. For example, it may be wise not to implement the new Trinidad & Tobago Aquatic IAS Public Awareness Campaign and to put those resources into supporting existing projects and/or helping to secure sustainability for one or more other projects

B. Numerous interviewees felt that regional leadership has not been proactive enough from multiple perspectives, including raising visibility of the project, bringing key stakeholder to the table, keeping project participants well-informed and engaged, and providing/facilitating constructive technical and logistical support.

C. Interviewees in The Dominican Republic indicated that the National Steering Committee is not

fully operational11 and that work is not proceeding in an effective manner. They indicated a lack of direction and ownership over the project.

D. Remaining financial planning concerns:

- Interviewees report that funds are largely or even totally unspent in some project categories.

The status of unspent funds needs to be evaluated as soon as possible and, where appropriate, these funds directed toward other project elements.

- Several individuals, in multiple countries, sited the lack of a “granting mechanism” as a barrier

to timely project implementation. The possibility of establishing granting mechanisms should be explored. It is not clear if this is a barrier at the regional or national level.

11 Note: In responding to this Review, the National Coordinator for the Dominican Republic noted surprise at this comment made by interviewees and provided copies of attendance lists that suggest the National Steering Committee has had multiple meetings.


- Interviewees expressed a need for further clarification on financial reporting timelines, establishment of reporting consistency, and greater flexibility on documenting in-kind services from project partners.

FOR UNEP, GEF, AND PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS

1. For future relevant projects on IAS at the regional scale, the Reviewer recommends requiring that at least one species and one pathway specific pilot project is shared (co-implemented) by all countries. Not only would this facilitate “on-the-ground” achievements, but more deliberately build the infrastructure necessary to enact a regional-approach to IAS. The lionfish work demonstrates the substantial value of a shared topic of concern when projects are to be explicitly regional in scope.

2. It appears that the pilot projects were not selected based on a clearly defined set of “best practice”

criteria carefully defined for the project context (budget, information base, technical capacity, and logistics), and either there was inadequate technical advice provided during the project planning phase or the technical advice was not well incorporated in some cases. In the future, the Reviewer recommends establishing a clear set of criteria that provided practical boundaries and explicitly harness the catalytic potential of targeted exercises. Such criteria include: established baseline data and readily available information for project design; relative logistical ease for implementation (e.g., site access, technical support, equipment availability); ability to accomplish measurable “on-the-ground” impacts within four years (and ideally disseminate the results within this time period as well), highly visible activities/outcomes that are likely to increase awareness of the IAS issue and leverage further support (including substantial cash and in-kind resources); and outputs that can have a direct impact on policy making and management goals, actively facilitate stakeholder engagement at all levels (especially partnerships between government agencies and other institutions), train/employ local staff, foster infrastructure development at national and regional levels, and demonstrate potential for sustainability (based on leadership, visibility, financial leveraging, etc.).


6. Evaluator’s ratings of the project and summary comments

Criterion Evaluator’s Summary Comments Evaluator’s Rating

A. Attainment of project objectives and results (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

MS to S

A. 1. Effectiveness

The project logframe elements are rather vague and not well linked to measurable economical or economic indices that would reflect actually impacts by the project on IAS. The project appears to have achieved a rather mixed and level of success and impact at mid-term. From the Reviewer’s perspective, part of this is a reflection of a project design that did not receive and/or incorporate adequate technical input. The Reviewer discourages the use of the logframe as a standalone representation of project progress. There are already notable project successes on which the project should further capitalise.

MS

A. 2. Relevance The project as currently designed is consistent with GEF-4 Biodiversity Strategic Programme 7: Prevention, Control and Management of IAS. Several project elements advance work toward the CBD Aichi Target 9 on a national and regional basis, and also serve as responses to key CBD decisions on IAS (particularly those arising from COP VI/23 and SBSTTA 15). The countries should report, as relevant, on progress towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG). Focal points for the various international organisations listed on pages 45-46 of the Project Document should be identified, kept well-informed about the project, and encouraged to find opportunities to transfer project lessons and outputs into this fora.

S

A. 3. Efficiency Because the project has such a relatively low budget for its scale and Objectives/Outcomes, it must be cost-efficient if it is going to succeed. Some of the project elements are built upon efforts that were already underway (e.g., Jamaican iguana, some national strategies, CABI Compendium) and have previously garnered financial and logistical support. The project is thus far achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. Efficiency could be greatly increased if the CIASNET.org website were made more user-friendly and populated enough to serve as a dynamic IAS information portal for project implementers and stakeholders.

S

B. Sustainability of Project outcomes (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

B. 1. Financial Actions to achieve financial sustainability of project results were not explicitly built into the original project design. Thus far the project participants have been successful in achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. There is reason to believe that they can continue to be successful in this regard and achieve financial sustainability if they make it a priority over the next two years.

ML

B. 2. Socio-Political

Non-native species are largely designated as IAS through value-based determinations and their introduction and spread is facilitated by trade, travel, and transport. The issue is therefore inherently tied to socio-economic and political factors. Long-term success of this project is largely in the hands of the national governments. At this time, IAS is not a policy priority and little proactive effort has yet to be made through the project to incorporate IAS into existing legal/policy frameworks or draft new legislation and soft law tools (e.g., codes of conduct). Interviewees also point to a need for the project to

ML



strengthen relationships with stakeholder groups that have the capacity and inspiration to assume long-term ownership. Based on the Reviewer’s perspective and the observation of several people in project leadership roles, insufficient proactive effort has been made to bring representatives from major international NGOs, academic institutions, and other relevant organisations to the table. This is a challenge that must be overcome in the near-term is socio-political sustainability is to be achieved.

B. 3. Institutional framework and governance

The institutionalisation of key project activities is of paramount importance to ensuring programme and project sustainability. While this is intellectually recognised by project leadership at the coordination and pilot project levels (see interviewee comments Annex 9), the project does not explicitly include actions to secure institutionalisation of staffing positions, programmes, or activities initiated or expanded through the GEF project. As documented in Annexes 8, 9, and 10, stakeholder awareness-raising and school education programmes have been an early source of success for this project. Overburdened staff and insufficient technical capacity in some areas are currently among the project challenges identified by interviewees.

ML

B. 4. Environmental

IAS are themselves and environmental threat. Climate change is likely to primarily exacerbate the IAS issue.

ML


At mid-term, most of the project activities are still “in progress” [In some cases they are on schedule and simply require more time. In other instances this is because the elements are behind schedule due to logistical challenges.] The Reviewer has chosen to briefly highlight five activities that warrant particular acknowledgment and/or input at this time: the Regional IAS Strategy and Action Plan, the CIASNET.org website, lionfish projects, other pilot projects, and the Marine IAS Public Awareness Campaign.

HS to Unrated

D. Catalytic Role

There was no detailed plan for project replication or spread throughout the region presented in the Project Document, which would have helped direct this project activity. The Regional Strategy developed as part of this project also lacks explicit treatment of these elements. At mid-term, it is the Reviewer’s opinion that it is too early to evaluate the replication potential of the project, or how much replication is warranted. IAS are a context specific issue and specific approaches used in one location are not necessarily transferrable – at least not without adequate testing and thorough evaluation. Certainly lessons learned from the project should be communicated widely, and applied internally as well. There is no clear plan to do this set out within the project Outcomes and the Reviewer strongly encourages the project team to develop an explicit plan for transferring lessons learned throughout the Caribbean, as well as for consideration by other regions. As a minimum, lessons learned should be shared through the CIASNET.org website and the CBD Clearing-house Mechanism (CHM)/IAS Portal.

MS

E. Assessment Monitoring and Evaluation (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

.

E. 1. M&E Design

The Project Document sets out a brief and rather general Monitoring and Evaluation plan. Several forms were provided in the project document for tracking, and National Coordinators have apparently received numerous additional forms to incorporate in monitoring tasks since the programme began. Key roles for the International Project Steering Committee (IPSC) are not adequately defined in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan. It is the Reviewer’s sense, largely based on comments made by interviewees, that the IPSC has needed to play a greater leadership role in providing technical evaluation and feedback in a timely manner to project participants.

MS

E. 2. M&E Plan

It is the Reviewer’s understanding that activity/technical reports have, for the most part, been on-time throughout the first two years of the project. However,

MS



Implementation (use for adaptive management)

substantial time delays and inconsistency is present in the financial reporting – leading to considerable frustration among participants at every level of the project. Most project partners have found reporting to be an onerous task. The two Project Internal Reviews (PIRs) read by the Reviewer (for 2010 and 2011) are comprehensive and informative with an even assessment of the situation. Some project participants, particular those involved in the pilot projects, report that the feedback they have received on project progress from the IPSC/regional coordinators is unnecessarily critical and impractical. The Reviewer feels that the project is underutilizing the technical expertise available to the project both internally and externally to monitor progress and achieve adaptive management in a timely manner.

E. 3. Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities

The Reviewer has not been given any reason to believe that M & E funds have been insufficient thus far.

S

E. 4. Long-term monitoring

Long-term monitoring is not set out in the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, nor the Sustainability section of the Project Document. This should be included in a well-targeted sustainability plan.

MU

F. Preparation and readiness

The Reviewer would have liked to have seen more effort made in the project design/initiation phases to identify previous work done in the region and learn from IAS efforts that have taken place on islands in other parts of the world. The logframe and indicators are not ideal for measuring actual impacts on IAS from either ecological or economic perspectives. The “Mitigating the Threats” project is rather ambitious given its context, timeframe, and budget. The Reviewer is concerned that the participants are spread too thin and that people at all levels of the project report being overloaded and under stress. Several current project partners indicated that they felt underutilized and undervalued by project leadership.

MS

G. Country ownership / drivenness

Country ownership/drive seems to be well established among the National Coordinators (although see previous comments about concerns voiced in The Dominican Republic) and IPSC participants. Concern was voiced in each country that ownership has not yet been established at the highest political levels and that IAS is simply not a matter of policy priority. Interviewees expressed the desire/need for regional and national coordinators to take more proactive measures to raise awareness of the project and inspire ministerial-level support for IAS as an important and urgent matter.

MS

H. Stakeholders involvement

The Project Document includes a section on “stakeholder mapping and analysis.” Rather than providing a true “analysis” of potential IAS stakeholder in the region (particularly those impacted by IAS and/or facilitating their spread), the Project Document provides a list of the regional partners and their roles (Table 2) and a brief description of partner capacities, which largely focuses on CABI, the project Regional Executing Agency. Some of the partners listed in Table 2 (e.g., GISP) are no longer operational. Others (e.g., IABIN) are going through financial transitions and their future in uncertain. Several of these “partners” report that they have either not been engaged in the project to date or only marginally so (e.g., IABIN, IUCN). A few of the partners that have been engaged report that there is a need to strengthen these partnerships. There seems to be substantial need and room to bring additional partners into the project, especially partners that can help create a foundation for IAS programme sustainability in the region. Some of the pilot project leads have excelled at engaging local communities in their work (e.g., lionfish in Jamaica and The Bahamas, donkey/goat consultations in the Dominican Republic) as well as working with school children and teachers.

I. Financial planning

Inadequate opportunity was provided to thoroughly review the project’s financial planning. Financial reports were not received until very late in the

MS



project evaluation process. Thus far the project participants have been successful in achieving significant cash and in-kind co-financing and leveraging additional funds. There is reason to believe that they can continue to be highly successful in this regard. Project participants do report that financial management has been a substantial challenge and continues to be a source of angst (especially where co-financing is concerned).


The Project Document includes sections entitled “Institutional Framework and Implementation Arrangements” and “Monitoring and Evaluation Plan.” It does not include a single section explicitly focused on the “implementation approach.” According to interviewees, there is considerable gratitude for CABI’s willingness to serve as regional EA for this project. The amount of effort required to manage a project of this magnitude on a relatively small budget is recognised by the project participants and the Reviewer. The regional project team, National Coordinators, and pilot project leads are clearly dedicated to this project and investing considerable time and effort in its execution. The interviewees and Reviewer did identify several areas in which implementation needs to be improved.

S

K. UNEP Supervision and backstopping

Information collected during the Evaluation indicated that the UNEP Task Manager played has played an important oversight role during project implementation. Regional and national level coordinators openly expressed appreciation for Kristin McLaughlin’s leadership and support of this project. The Task Manager has conducted two Project Internal Reviews (PIRs): 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010; 1 January 2011 to 30 June 2011. These reviews appear to be thorough and contain detailed lists of project accomplishments. The Task Manager has participated in the Project Inception Workshop and the IPSC operations.

HS


7. Annexes

Annex 1: Evaluation Terms of Reference

TERMS OF REFERENCE

Mid-Term Review of the GEF project Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean

1. Objective and Scope of the Review The objective of this Mid-Term Review (MTR) is to assess design and operational aspects, such as project management and implementation of activities and the level of progress towards the objectives of the above referenced project. The review will assess project performance and the implementation of planned project activities and planned outputs against actual results. It will focus on identifying corrective actions needed for the project to achieve maximum impact. Review findings will feed back into project management processes through specific recommendations and ‘lessons learned’ to date. 2. Minimum Qualification Requirements. Reviewer should have: A Master’s degree or higher in the area of environmental sciences or a related field and at least 15 years experience in environmental management, with a preference for specific expertise in the area of invasive species. Highly desirable would be invasive species experience in island settings and a working knowledge of the Spanish Language. 3. Methods This Mid-Term review will be conducted as an in-depth review using a participatory approach whereby the UNEP Task Manager, key representatives of the regional and national executing agencies and other relevant staff are kept informed and regularly consulted throughout the review. The Reviewer/Review team will liaise with the UNEP Project Task Manager on any logistic and/or methodological issues to properly conduct the review in as independent a way as possible, given the circumstances and resources offered.

The findings of the review will be based on the following:

1. A desk review of project documents including, but not limited to: a. The project documents, outputs, monitoring reports (such as progress and financial reports to

UNEP and GEF annual Project Implementation Review reports) and relevant correspondence. b. Notes from the Steering Committee meetings. c. Draft GEF Tracking Tools to be completed by each Participating countries prior to Mid Term

Review start. d. Other project-related material produced by the project staff or partners. e. Relevant material published, e.g. in journals, books, at conferences or on the project web-site:

www.ciasnet.org. Reviewer/Review Team to develop a standard checklist to keep review consistent across countries.

2. Interviews with project management and technical support including the current project team based in Trinidad, national execution teams for 5 countries and key regional partners to the extent possible (see Annex 1).

3. Interviews and telephone interviews with intended users for the project outputs and other partners and stakeholders involved with this project, including NGOs, regional and international organizations and institutes in the participating countries and regions. The Reviewer/Review team/Review team shall determine whether to seek additional information and opinions from representatives of donor agencies


and other organisations. As appropriate, these interviews could be combined with an email questionnaire.

4. Interviews with the UNEP Project Task Manager and Fund Management Officer, and other relevant

staff in UNEP related activities as necessary. The Reviewer/Review team shall also gain broader perspectives from discussions with relevant GEF Secretariat staff.

5. The Reviewer/Review team will visit Trinidad and Tobago to consult with CABI. The

Reviewer/Review team will furthermore visit a minimum of 3 of the 5 participating countries (inclusive of Trinidad and Tobago) to ground truth findings pursuant to paras 1-4 above. The balance of the countries (2) will be reviewed pursuant to paras 1-4 above.

Key Review Principles In attempting to evaluate any outcomes and impacts that the project may have achieved, Reviewer/Review Team should remember that the project’s performance should be assessed by considering the difference between the answer to “what happened?” and “what would have happened anyway?”. These questions imply that there should be consideration of the baseline conditions and trends in relation to the intended project outcomes and impacts. In addition, it implies that there should be plausible evidence to attribute such outcomes and impacts to the actions of the project. Furthermore, the Reviewer/Review Team should consider the project’s ability to leverage future actions and interact with unforeseen initiative: “has the ability of the region/countries been

strengthened to adapt to new circumstances and new issues (e.g. regional efforts on lionfish)?” Sometimes, adequate information on baseline conditions and trends is lacking. In such cases, this should be clearly highlighted by the Reviewer/Review team, along with any simplifying assumptions that were taken to enable the Reviewer/Review team to make informed judgements about project performance. At Mid-Term, impacts are unlikely; however, every effort should be made to assess the project’s progress towards the intended outcomes. Scope of the review 4. Assessment of project assumptions, objectives and design The review will examine the following:

Project theory

Assessment of the assumptions and of the theory of change (causal pathways) underpinning the project idea and design, including its coherence, internal and external validity.

Project objectives and Logical Framework

Analysis of the project Logical Framework and variations over time if any, including:

• the links and causal relationships between inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and impact (specific and development objectives);

• relevance and appropriateness of indicators;

• validity of assumptions and risks

• existence of formal approvals to any modifications of the logical framework

Project design

Analysis of the project strategy and structure including:

• approach and methodology;

• time frame and resources;

• institutional set-up;

• management arrangements;

• stakeholders and beneficiaries identification.


5. Project Performance with respect to GEF Review Parameters

A. Attainment of objectives and planned results (progress to date):

The assessment of project results seeks to determine the extent to which the project objectives have been, or are expected to be achieved, and assess whether the project has led to any other positive or negative consequences. While assessing a project’s progress towards the intended outcomes / objectives as stated in the project document (PD), the review will also indicate if there were any changes to the outputs and performance indicators in the PD and whether those changes were approved. If the project did not establish a baseline (initial conditions), the Reviewer/Review team should seek to estimate the baseline condition so that achievements and results can be properly established (or simplifying assumptions used). Outcomes are the likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention’s outputs. Examples of outcomes could include but are not restricted to stronger institutional capacities, higher public awareness (when leading to changes of behaviour), and transformed policy frameworks.

• Effectiveness: Evaluate how, and to what extent, the stated project objectives will be met, taking into account the “achievement indicators” specified in the project document and logical framework.

• Relevance: How and to what extent, will the stated project’s actual or intended outcomes consistent with the focal areas/operational programme strategies and country priorities? Ascertain the nature and significance of the contribution of the project outcomes to the wider GEF Biodiversity portfolio.

• Efficiency: How and to what extent is the project cost-effective, is the cost-time vs outcomes comparable to similar projects, and is the project implementation on schedule or delayed? Includes an assessment of outcomes achieved to date in relation to inputs, costs, and implementation times based on the following questions: Is the project cost–effective? How does the cost-time vs. outcomes compare to other similar projects? Has the project implementation been delayed? Is it on track?

B. Assessment of Sustainability of project outcomes:

Sustainability is understood as the probability of continued long-term project-derived outcomes and impacts after the GEF project funding ends. The review will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends. At

mid-term, identification of any likely barriers to sustaining the intended outcomes of the project is especially important. Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, e.g. stronger institutional capacities or better informed decision-making, legal frameworks, socio-economics incentives or public awareness. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes. The review should ascertain to what extent follow-up work has been initiated and how project outcomes will be sustained and enhanced over time. In this case, sustainability will be linked to the likelihood of continued use and influence of best practices promoted by the project to plan and manage aquatic resources and ecosystems on a sustainable basis.

Four aspects of sustainability should be addressed: financial, socio-political, institutional frameworks and governance, and environmental. The following questions provide guidance on the assessment of these aspects:

• Financial resources. To what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on continued financial support? What is the likelihood that any required financial resources will be available to sustain the project outcomes/benefits once the GEF assistance ends (resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and market trends that support the project’s objectives)?

• Socio-political: To what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on socio-political factors? What is the likelihood that the level of stakeholder ownership will allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project?

• Institutional framework and governance. To what extent are the outcomes of the project dependent on issues relating to institutional frameworks and governance?


What is the likelihood that institutional and technical achievements, legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes will allow for, the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? While responding to these questions consider if the required systems for accountability and transparency and the required technical know-how are in place.

• Environmental. Are there any environmental risks that can undermine the future flow of project environmental benefits?

C. Achievement of outputs and activities:

• Delivered outputs: Assessment of the project’s success in producing each of the programmemed outputs to date, both in quantity and quality as well as usefulness and timeliness.

• Assess the soundness and effectiveness of the methodologies used for developing the technical documents and related management options in the participating countries.

• Assess to what extent the designed demonstrations have the weight of scientific authority / credibility, necessary to influence policy and decision-makers, particularly at the national level and suggest any possible improvements.

D. Catalytic Role and Replication The mid-term review will also describe any catalytic or replication effect of the project. What examples are there of replication and catalytic outcomes which suggest increased likelihood of sustainability? Replication approach, in the context of GEF projects, is defined as lessons and experiences coming out of the project that are replicated or scaled up in the design and implementation of other projects. Replication can have two aspects, replication proper (lessons and experiences are replicated in different geographic area) or scaling up (lessons and experiences are replicated within the same geographic area but funded by other sources). ). If no effects are identified, the review will describe the catalytic or replication actions that the project carried out, or possible strategies for this purpose.

E. Assessment of Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

• M&E design. Does the project have a sound M&E plan to monitor results and track progress towards achieving project objectives? The Mid-term Review will assess whether the project met the minimum requirements for project design of M&E and the application of the Project M&E plan (Minimum requirements are specified in Annex 2). The review shall include an assessment of the quality, application and effectiveness of project monitoring and review plans and tools, including an assessment of risk management based on the assumptions and risks identified in the project document. The M&E plan should include a baseline (including data, methodology, etc.), SMART (see Annex 2) indicators and data analysis systems, and review studies at specific times to assess results. The time frame for various M&E activities and standards for outputs should have been specified based on results based management principles.

• M&E plan implementation. Is an M&E system in place and does it facilitate tracking of results and progress towards projects objectives throughout the project implementation period. Are Annual project reports complete, accurate and with well justified ratings? Is the information provided by the M&E system used to improve project performance and to adapt to changing needs? Does the project have an M&E system in place with proper training for parties responsible for M&E activities to ensure data will continue to be collected and used after project closure?

• Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities. Were adequate budget provisions for M&E made and are such resources made available in a timely fashion during implementation?

• Long-term Monitoring. Is long-term monitoring envisaged as an outcome of the project? If so, comment specifically on the relevance of such monitoring systems to sustaining project outcomes and how the monitoring effort will be sustained.

F. Preparation and Readiness

G. Are the project’s objectives and components clear, practicable and feasible within its timeframe? Were the capacities of executing institution and counterparts properly considered when the project was designed? Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated in the project design? Were the partnership arrangements properly identified and the roles and responsibilities negotiated prior to project implementation? Did the long gestation phase for the project’s preparation affect those involved in this timeline, particularly turnover in staff? Were counterpart resources (funding, staff, and facilities), enabling legislation, and adequate project management arrangements in place? Country ownership /driveness:


This is the relevance of the project to national development and environmental agendas, recipient country commitment, and regional and international agreements. Examples of possible evaluative questions include: Was the project design in-line with the national sectoral and development priorities and plans? Are project outcomes contributing to national development priorities and plans? Were the relevant country representatives, from government and civil society, involved in the project design? Are the relevant country representatives, from government and civil society, involved in the project implementation? Is the recipient government maintaining its financial commitment to the project? How are the interests of five countries managed at the regional level? How are change and evolution of national priorities managed?

H. Stakeholder participation / public awareness: Does the project involve the relevant stakeholders through information sharing, consultation and by seeking their participation in project’s design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation? For example, does the project implement appropriate outreach and public awareness campaigns? Does the project consult and make use of the skills, experience and knowledge of the appropriate government entities, NGOs, community groups, private sector, local governments and academic institutions in the design, implementation and evaluation of project activities? Are perspectives of those that would be affected by decisions, those that could affect the outcomes and those that could contribute information or other resources to the process taken into account while taking decisions? Are the relevant vulnerable groups, the supporters and the opponents, of the processes properly involved? Specifically the review will:

• Assess the mechanisms put in place by the project for identification and engagement of stakeholders in each participating country and establish, in consultation with the stakeholders, whether this mechanism was successful, and identify its strengths and weaknesses.

• Assess the degree and effectiveness of collaboration/interactions between the various project partners and institutions during the course of implementation of the project.

• Assess the degree and effectiveness of any various public awareness activities that have been undertaken during the course of implementation of the project thus far.

I. Financial Planning Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allowed management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds. Specifically, the review should:

• Assess the strength and utility of financial controls, including reporting, and planning to allow the project management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for a proper and timely flow of funds for the payment of satisfactory project deliverables throughout the project’s lifetime.

• Present the major findings from the financial audit if one has been conducted.

• Did promised co-financing materialize thus far? Identify and verify the sources of co- financing as well as leveraged and associated financing (in co-operation with the IA and EA).

• Assess whether the project has applied appropriate standards of due diligence in the management of funds and financial audits.

The review should also include a breakdown of actual expenditures of GEF and co-financing for the project to date prepared in consultation with the relevant UNEP Fund Management Officer (table attached in Annex 3)

J. Implementation approach: This includes an analysis of the project’s management framework, adaptation to changing conditions (adaptive management), partnerships in implementation arrangements, changes in project design, and overall project management. The review will:

• Ascertain to what extent the project implementation mechanisms outlined in the project document have been closely followed. In particular, assess the role of the various committees established and whether the project document was clear and realistic to enable effective and efficient implementation, whether the project was executed according to the plan and how well the management was able to adapt to changes during the life of the project to enable the implementation of the project.

• Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency and adaptability of project management and the supervision of project activities / project execution arrangements at all levels.

• Assess whether the logical framework was used during implementation as a management tool and whether feedback from M&E activities more broadly was used for adaptive management.


K. UNEP Supervision and Backstopping

• Assess the effectiveness of supervision and administrative and financial support provided by UNEP. Did they identify problems in a timely fashion and accurately estimate the seriousness? Did they provide quality support and advice to the project, approve modifications in time and restructure the project when needed? Did they provide the right staffing levels, continuity, skill mix, frequency

• Identify administrative, operational and/or technical problems and constraints that influenced the effective implementation of the project.

The ratings will be presented in the form of a table. Each of the eleven categories should be rated separately with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. An overall rating for the project should also be given. The following rating system is to be applied:

HS = Highly Satisfactory S = Satisfactory MS = Moderately Satisfactory MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory U = Unsatisfactory HU = Highly Unsatisfactory Wherever possible, the Reviewer/Review team will provide recommendations for improvement of project performance in each of the eleven categories above, so that the project could incorporate them into the implementation of the remaining duration of the project

In addition, the Reviewer/Review team should prepare a draft ‘performance table’ for the project. This table should specify, for each of the main objectives and outcomes in the project logical framework, levels of performance (and their means of assessment) using the six performance categories above (HS to HU). This performance table will be discussed and finalised during the next Project Steering Committee Meeting and will be used as a rubric for assessing project performance in the Terminal Evaluation of the project. An example is shown in Annex 4.

6. Review report format and review procedures The report should be brief, to the point and easy to understand. It must explain the purpose of the review, exactly what was evaluated and the methods used. The report must highlight any methodological limitations, identify key concerns and present evidence-based findings, consequent conclusions, recommendations and lessons. The report should provide information on when the review took place, the places visited, who was involved and be presented in a way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible. The report should include an executive summary that encapsulates the essence of the information contained in the report to facilitate clear managerial responses. The review will rate the overall implementation success of the project and provide individual ratings of the eleven implementation aspects as per Annex 5. The ratings will be presented in the format of a table with brief justifications based on the findings of the main analysis. Evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a complete and balanced manner. Any dissident views in response to review findings will be appended in an annex. The review report shall be written in English, be of no more than 50 pages (excluding annexes), use numbered paragraphs and include:

i) An executive summary (no more than 3 pages) providing a brief overview of the main conclusions and recommendations of the review;

ii) Introduction and background giving a brief overview of the evaluated project, for example, the objective and status of activities, it’s relevance and project theory / intervention logic;

iii) Scope, objective and methods presenting the review’s purpose, the review criteria used and questions to be addressed;

iv) Project Performance and Impact providing factual evidence relevant to the questions asked by the Reviewer/Review team and interpretations of such evidence. This is the main substantive section of the report and should provide a commentary on all review aspects (A − K above).


v) Conclusions and rating of project implementation success giving the Reviewer/Review team’s concluding assessments and ratings of the project against given review criteria and standards of performance. The conclusions should provide answers to questions about whether the project is considered good or bad, and whether the results are considered positive or negative;

vi) Lessons learned presenting general conclusions from the standpoint of the design and implementation of the project, based on good practices and successes or problems and mistakes. Lessons should have the potential for wider application and use. All lessons should ‘stand alone’ and should:

� Specify the context from which they are derived � State or imply some prescriptive action; � Specify the contexts in which they may be applied (if possible who when and

where) vii) Recommendations. High quality recommendations should be actionable proposals that are:

• Implementable within the timeframe and resources available

• Commensurate with the available capacities of project team and partners

• Specific in terms of who would do what and when

• Contain results-based language (i.e. a measurable performance target)

• 2-3 suggestions regarding actions to support expansion to the other Caribbean

countries and territories Include a trade off analysis, when its implementation may

require utilizing significant resources that would have otherwise been used for other

project purposes. viii) Annexes include Terms of Reference, list of interviewees, documents reviewed, brief

summary of the expertise of the Reviewer/Review team, a summary of co-finance information etc. Dissident views or management responses to the review findings may later be appended in an annex.

Examples of UNEP GEF Mid-term Evaluation Reports are available at www.unep.org/eou Review of the Draft Mid-Term Review Report The Draft report shall be submitted to UNEP, Executing Agency staff and all other stakeholders can comment on the draft review report. They may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions. The consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and recommendations. The UNEP Project Task Manager will collate the review comments and provide them to the Reviewer/Review team for consideration in preparing the final version of the report. 7. Submission of Report. The final report shall be written in English and submitted in electronic form in MS Word format and should be sent directly to: Maryam Niamir-Fuller Director UNEP GEF Coordination Office P.O. Box 30552-00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254-20-7624686 Email: [email protected]

Steve Twomlow Senior Programme Officer, Biodiversity UNEP/DEPI

P.O. Box 30552-00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: + 254-20-7625076 Email : [email protected]

Kristin Mclaughlin Task Manager GEF Projects in the Caribbean UNEP, Suite 506


900 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Tel: +1-202-974-1312 Email: [email protected]

The final Mid-Term Review report will be considered as an ‘internal document’ with the circulation of the report to be determined by UNEP management. 8. Resources and schedule of the review

This Mid-Term Review will be undertaken by an international Reviewer/Review team contracted by the UNEP. The contract for the Reviewer/Review team will begin on 1 September 2011 and end on 15 December 2011 (30 working days) spread over 3.5 months (including 10-14 working days of travel, to Trinidad and Tobago and a minimum of an additional two (2) of the 5 following countries Bahamas, Dominican Republic, St. Lucia, and Jamaica ). The Reviewer/Review team will submit a draft report on 15 November 2011 to UNEP. Any comments or responses to the draft report will be sent to UNEP for collation and the Reviewer/Review team will be advised of any necessary revisions. Comments to the final draft report will be sent to the Reviewer/Review team by 30 November 2011 after which, the Reviewer/Review team will submit the final report no later than 15 December 2011.

The Reviewer/Review team will have an initial telephone briefing with UNEP, then travel to Trinidad and Tobago, followed by travel to a minimum of two additional participating countries from the following list: Bahamas, Dominican Republic, St Lucia, or Jamaica (in an order to be determined at review inception). The Reviewer/Review team will have an initial telephone briefing with UNEP, then travel to Trinidad and Tobago, followed by travel to two additional participating countries from the following list: Bahamas, Dominican Republic, St Lucia, or Jamaica (in an order to be determined at review inception). The Reviewer/Review team should be an international expert in environmental science with expertise in the field of invasive alien species. Fluency in oral and written English is a must, Spanish highly desirable. The Reviewer/Review team will work under the overall supervision of the Task Manager, UNEP. 9. Schedule Of Payment Lump-Sum Option ($20,000) The Reviewer/Review team will receive an initial payment of 30% of the total amount due upon signature of the contract. A further 50% will be paid upon submission of the draft final report. A final payment of 20% will be made upon satisfactory completion of work. The $20,000 fee is payable under the individual Special Service Agreement (SSA) of the Reviewer/Review team and is inclusive of all expenses such as travel, accommodation and incidental expenses. 10. Proviso In case, the Reviewer/Review team cannot provide the products in accordance with the TORs, the timeframe agreed, or his/her products are substandard, the payment to the Reviewer/Review team could be withheld, until such a time the products are modified to meet UNEP's standard. In case the Reviewer/Review team fails to submit a satisfactory final product to UNEP, the product prepared by the Reviewer/Review team may not constitute the Mid Term Review report.


TOR Annex 1. Key Regional Partners

Partner agency Role CABI Caribbean and Latin America (CLA)

• Preparation and submission of the FSP proposal and implementation

• Active lobbying for co-finance with a wide range of stakeholders

• Continued stakeholder liaison and networking (electronic and in person) to maintain current momentum of interaction created during PDF-A at national, regional and global levels

• Attendance of relevant meetings for continued stakeholder sensitisation and building of partnerships, i.e. through CBD, CISWG and GISP

• Support PPG management and implementation

Caribbean Community (CARICOM)

• Publicity at relevant meetings and in relevant bodies, e.g. CISWG

• Support to policy and legislative regime including harmonisation of Plant and Animal Health Legislation

• Support for infrastructure development

• Advocacy for strategies for managing IAS in the CARICOM countries

• Support or development of mechanisms for coordination of IAS issues

Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES)

• Provide training through the delivery of short courses

• Supervise student research projects in areas relevant to the project

Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group (CISWG)

• Assist the 12 countries represented in CISWG, which include four of the five GEF pilot countries, with the development and implementation of national invasive species strategies (Components 1, 4 & 5 of GEF project)

• Collaborate with CABI on the further development of CISWG’s CRISIS to cover also IAS of primarily environmental importance, including aquatic IAS (Component 2)

• Continue to organise regular (at least annual) CISWG meetings at which the GEF initiative will be invited to share experiences with all attending CISWG members (Component 3)

• Provide access to CISWG’s d-groups on priority IAS for interested project partners for regular information exchange (Component 3)

• Coordinate the further development of the Caribbean Invasive Species Surveillance

and Information Programme (CISSIP) (Components 2 & 3) with CABI

• Influence policy makers to endorse and collaborate with the GEF initiative, e.g. with the relevant CARICOM bodies and/or Governments (Component 2)

Caribbean Taxonomic Network (CARINET) and Caribbean Pest Information Network CARIPESTNET

• Diagnostic services, staff involvement (arthropods, micro-organisms, nematodes, molluscs, weeds)

• Design and development of a searchable database for IAS photo gallery

• Capacity building – regional training workshop


• Miscellaneous – meetings, surveys, office supplies

Council of Presidents of the Environment (COPE)

• Communication and dissemination of information, especially to Non-Governmental Organisation (NGOs) in Trinidad & Tobago

Environmental Law Institute (ELI)

• Include an invasive species expert as a presenter at the ELI’s judicial training for judges in the insular Caribbean project

• Feature the invasive species issue in the moot court exercise as part of the judicial training for judges in the insular Caribbean

• Include appropriate materials on invasive species in the course book provided to the judge participants

Florida A&M University (FAMU) – Center for Biological Control


• Research on priority invasive pest threat – mainly insects.

• Development and deployment of lucid identification tools.

• Development of human capital through training.

• Contribute to the development of regional safeguarding strategies through active participation in CISWG and other regional networks.

FAO • Knowledge sharing


Partner agency Role

• Global Networking

• Participation in CISWG meetings

• Technical support, back-stopping

(Former) Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP)

• GISP training materials and publications

• Networking electronically and at relevant meetings

• Global networking, both electronically and by attendance of relevant meetings

• Raising awareness of the threat posed by invasive species and promoting the proposed project through GISP’s global network

• Provision of training materials and publications

• Facilitating the transfer of results and output from the project into policy recommendations

InGrip Consulting and Animal Control (Germany)

• Work worldwide on control and eradication of terrestrial invasive alien vertebrates and exotic ants

• Strong interest in conservation of native species which are under threat of IAS, e.g. sea turtles, iguanas, snakes, seabirds, doves and the last endemic mammal spp. of the terrestrial Caribbean (the hutias)

• Training of governmental and non-governmental staff and conservation workers in techniques of permanent control or eradication of terrestrial invasive vertebrates

• Assistance in setting up monitoring schemes for future protection of cleared areas and the prevention of new invasions by invasive animals at these sites

• Facilitation in establishment of contacts or partnerships and assistance at seeking funds or donations for urgent projects and practical field work against invasive species

Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA)

• Research (e.g. physical monitoring, desk studies of databases) on Perna viridis and

Caulerpa taxifolia

• Training, public awareness and dissemination of information on MIS

Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network’s (IABIN) Invasives Information Network (I3N)

• Contribute to the development of this proposal at a level according to the level of support from the PPG.

• Provide IABIN Invasive Information Network (I3N) Standards and Protocols on IAS data exchange for the Caribbean region

• Train users in the Caribbean on IAS issues and I3N tools

• Adapt the I3N tool to risk analysis and pathway analysis to Caribbean priorities

• Administer an IAS content building grant for the Dominican Republic

Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA)

• Provide technical support for the FSP phase of the project

• Attendance and participation in the FSP International Stakeholders Workshop

• Attendance and participation in CISWG meetings

• Provide technical support to countries on controlling, managing and/or eradicating IAS that are plant and animal pests

• Dissemination of relevant information

• Stage and/or participate in seminars, workshops or special activities on IAS

• Make available the IICA country offices for seminars, workshops, meetings and special activities

• Provide secretarial support, materials and equipment such as computers, printers, fax machines, paper and CDs.

The World Conservation Union (IUCN)

Managing IAS that are threatening important biodiversity:

• Application of the ecosystem approach

• Invasion reduction and the restoration of affected systems

• IAS knowledge management

• Support to GISP

Regional Activity Centre - Regional Marine Pollution Emergency Information and Training Centre (RAC/REMPEITC)

• Capacity building; i.e. inform of courses and workshops undertaken by GloBallast in the region, if possibly invite persons in Island states IAS project as observers

• Exchange guidelines etc. developed by GloBallast i.e. GloBallast water course; Guidelines for rapid assessment of current status; Guidelines for national BW management system; Model legislation and training thereof; Compliance, monitoring and enforcement models and indicators; Port baseline survey protocols; Database design criteria

• Assist countries with ratification of Cartagena convention and SPAW protocol, which


Partner agency Role instrument can be used as a legal basis of the response of the IAS issue

• Assist Lead Partner Countries on GloBallast project with a view to share the knowledge gained regarding the implementation of BW management initiatives in the region

• Organise a regional BW management meeting in 2009. The targeted countries for this activity are: Jamaica, Venezuela, Trinidad & Tobago, Bahamas, and Barbados. Additional; countries may be included if more funding materialises

The Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods, Trinidad & Tobago (SUSTRUST)

• Assist in project development, implementation and evaluation in areas related to biodiversity and natural resources management.

• Access to human resources in various disciplines across the Caribbean through network of professionals across the Caribbean, including senior officers in government, intergovernmental and non-governmental agencies.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Policy specialists will contribute recommendations for IAS prevention:

• Participation of programme staff in national planning and strategic activities for the Bahamas

• Capacity assistance on invasives species management in national parks (e.g., Melaleuca quinquenervia) in the Bahamas;

• Participation of programme staff in national planning and strategic activities for the Dominican Republic

• Identification and prioritization of specific pathways for the movement of invasive species within the Caribbean and Meso-American region

• Policy assistance through the development and dissemination of a national model invasive species strategy and integration of regional priorities into the upcoming in depth review of invasive alien species under the Convention on Biological Diversity

• Information assistance on national invasive species databases through the Nature Conservancy’s work with the Inter-American Biodiversity Information

• The Bahamas: Involvement and support in IAS pilot projects (2009-13)

• The Dominican Republic: Involvement in the development and implementation of priority national IAS activities (2009-13)

• Regional: Sponsorship of a regional workshop to establish a learning network on IAS and fire management (2009)

• Regional: Support for regional coordination, particularly involvement in and follow up to an international workshop sponsored by the Conservancy and the government of New Zealand on Islands and Invasives: Regional Island Coordination to Manage Invasive Species Threats (2010)

• General: Support to project countries on technical, policy and information management issues from regional and international staff (2009-13)

United Nations Environment Programme – Caribbean Environment Programme (UNEP-CEP)

• Capacity building and training activities in the marine sector, focusing on Marine Protected Areas

• Development of National Strategies for SPAW Contracting Parties

• Establishment of region-wide cooperation programme

• Capacity building for management and early detection of marine systems

University of Florida – Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF-IFAS)

• Provide technical input and support to CISWG to further elaborate and implement CRISIS and the operational component of this strategy, which is CISSIP

• Financial support for selected Caribbean regional participants to participate in the annual T-STAR invasive species symposium as a concurrent session with the annual Caribbean Food Crop Society (CFCS) meeting

• Support the hosting and facilitate the meeting of CISWG concurrent with the annual CFCS meeting

• Technical and research support for Red Palm Mite management and mitigation

• Coordination of Caribbean regional activities involving IAS through the UF-IFAS office on International Programmes, which serves as the principal point of contact

United States Department of Agriculture – Animal and Plant Health

• Support to the Annual Caribbean Plant Health Director's Meeting

• Support to the meetings and related projects of the associated working groups

• Support to the fruit fly trapping programme for the Caribbean


Partner agency Role Inspection Service (USDA-APHIS)

University of the West Indies (UWI)

Research on marine invasive aspects of the project; these will include:

• Contributions to the data on marine biodiversity (NBSAP) for Trinidad & Tobago , from baseline surveys in coastal and marine areas

• Generating support for the project from marinas and ports in Trinidad & Tobago where pilot project may be located

• Co-ordinate and supervise student research projects on marine invasives (e.g. attached fauna or BW studies)

• Support for key staff member/s to attend appropriate workshops


TOR Annex 2. GEF Minimum requirements for M&E

Minimum Requirement 1: Project Design of M&E12

All projects must include a concrete and fully budgeted monitoring and evaluation plan by the time of Work

Programme entry (full-sized projects) or CEO approval (medium-sized projects). This plan must contain at a

minimum:

� SMART (see below) indicators for project implementation, or, if no indicators are identified, an alternative

plan for monitoring that will deliver reliable and valid information to management

� SMART indicators for results (outcomes and, if applicable, impacts), and, where appropriate, corporate-

level indicators

� A project baseline, with:

− a description of the problem to address

− indicator data

− or, if major baseline indicators are not identified, an alternative plan for addressing this within one year

of implementation

� An M&E Plan with identification of reviews and evaluations which will be undertaken, such as mid-term

reviews or evaluations of activities

� An organizational setup and budgets for monitoring and evaluation.

12 http://gefweb.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEPoliciesProcedures/MEPTools/meptstandards.html


Minimum Requirement 2: Application of Project M&E

� Project monitoring and supervision will include implementation of the M&E plan, comprising:

� Use of SMART indicators for implementation (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not used)

� Use of SMART indicators for results (or provision of a reasonable explanation if not used)

� Fully established baseline for the project and data compiled to review progress

� Evaluations are undertaken as planned

� Operational organizational setup for M&E and budgets spent as planned.

SMART INDICATORS GEF projects and programmes should monitor using relevant performance indicators.

The monitoring system should be “SMART”:

1. Specific: The system captures the essence of the desired result by clearly and directly relating to

achieving an objective, and only that objective.

2. Measurable: The monitoring system and its indicators are unambiguously specified so that all parties

agree on what the system covers and there are practical ways to measure the indicators and results.

3. Achievable and Attributable: The system identifies what changes are anticipated as a result of the

intervention and whether the result(s) are realistic. Attribution requires that changes in the targeted

developmental issue can be linked to the intervention.

4. Relevant and Realistic: The system establishes levels of performance that are likely to be achieved in

a practical manner, and that reflect the expectations of stakeholders.

5. Time-bound, Timely, Trackable, and Targeted: The system allows progress to be tracked in a cost-

effective manner at desired frequency for a set period, with clear identification of the particular

stakeholder group to be impacted by the project or programme.


TOR Annex 3. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)

* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries. Leveraged

Resources Leveraged resources are additional resources—beyond those committed to

the project itself at the time of approval—that are mobilized later as a direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO’s, foundations, governments, communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project’s ultimate objective. Table showing actual project expenditure by activity to be supplied by the UNEP Fund management Officer. (insert here)

Co financing (Type/Source)

IA own Financing (mill US$)

Government (mill US$)

Other* (mill US$)

Total (mill US$)

Total Disbursement (mill US$)

Planned

Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual

− Grants

− Loans/Concessional (compared to market rate)

− Credits

− Equity investments

− In-kind support

− Other (*) - - - - -

Totals


TOR Annex 4. Project Performance Rubric

Project proposal Logframe Agreed Project performance indicators and targets

Overall Objectives

Objectively Verifiable Indicators

Means of Verification (Monitoring focus)

Highly Satisfactory

Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory

Moderately Unsatisfactory

Unsatisfactory

Highly Unsatisfactory

Outcomes

Outputs

of 223

TOR Annex 5. OVERALL RATINGS TABLE

Criterion Evaluator’s Summary Comments Evaluator’s

Rating

A. Attainment of project objectives and results (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

A. 1. Effectiveness

A. 2. Relevance

A. 3. Efficiency

B. Sustainability of Project outcomes (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

B. 1. Financial

B. 2. Socio Political

B. 3. Institutional framework and governance

B. 4. Environmental


D. Monitoring and Evaluation (overall rating) Sub criteria (below)

D. 1. M&E Design

D. 2. M&E Plan Implementation (use for adaptive management)

D. 3. Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities

E. Catalytic Role

F. Preparation and readiness

G. Country ownership / drivenness

H. Stakeholders involvement

I. Financial planning


K. UNEP Supervision and backstopping

Overall rating

RATING OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND RESULTS

Highly Satisfactory (HS): The project had no shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Satisfactory (S): The project had minor shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): The project had moderate shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): The project had significant shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Unsatisfactory (U) The project had major shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project had severe shortcomings in the achievement of its objectives, in terms of relevance, effectiveness or efficiency.

Please note: Relevance and effectiveness will be considered as critical criteria. The overall rating of the project for achievement of objectives and results may not be higher than the lowest rating on either of these two

of 223

criteria. Thus, to have an overall satisfactory rating for outcomes a project must have at least satisfactory ratings on both relevance and effectiveness. RATINGS ON SUSTAINABILITY A. Sustainability will be understood as the probability of continued long-term outcomes and impacts after the

GEF project funding ends. The Mid-Term Evaluation will identify and assess the key conditions or factors that are likely to contribute or undermine the persistence of benefits after the project ends. Some of these factors might be outcomes of the project, i.e. stronger institutional capacities, legal frameworks, socio-economic incentives /or public awareness. Other factors will include contextual circumstances or developments that are not outcomes of the project but that are relevant to the sustainability of outcomes..

Rating system for sustainability sub-criteria On each of the dimensions of sustainability of the project outcomes will be rated as follows.

Likely (L): There are no risks affecting this dimension of sustainability.

Moderately Likely (ML). There are moderate risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.

Moderately Unlikely (MU): There are significant risks that affect this dimension of sustainability

Unlikely (U): There are severe risks that affect this dimension of sustainability.

All the risk dimensions of sustainability are critical. Therefore, overall rating for sustainability will not be higher than the rating of the dimension with lowest ratings. For example, if a project has an Unlikely rating in either of the dimensions then its overall rating cannot be higher than Unlikely, regardless of whether higher ratings in other dimensions of sustainability produce a higher average.

RATINGS OF PROJECT M&E Monitoring is a continuing function that uses systematic collection of data on specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing project with indications of the extent of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the use of allocated funds. Evaluation is the systematic and objective assessment of an on-going or completed project, its design, implementation and results. Project evaluation may involve the definition of appropriate standards, the examination of performance against those standards, and an assessment of actual and expected results. The Project monitoring and evaluation system will be rated on ‘M&E Design’, ‘M&E Plan Implementation’ and ‘Budgeting and Funding for M&E activities’ as follows:

Highly Satisfactory (HS): There were no shortcomings in the project M&E system.

Satisfactory(S): There were minor shortcomings in the project M&E system.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): There were moderate shortcomings in the project M&E system.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): There were significant shortcomings in the project M&E system.

Unsatisfactory (U): There were major shortcomings in the project M&E system.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The Project had no M&E system.

“M&E plan implementation” will be considered a critical parameter for the overall assessment of the M&E system. The overall rating for the M&E systems will not be higher than the rating on “M&E plan implementation.”

All other ratings will be on a six point scale:

HS = Highly Satisfactory S = Satisfactory MS = Moderately Satisfactory MU = Moderately Unsatisfactory U = Unsatisfactory HU = Highly Unsatisfactory

MTISIC/mid-term review of 223

TOR Annex 6. Co-financing and Leveraged Resources

Co-financing (basic data to be supplied to the consultant for verification)

* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries. Leveraged Resources

Leveraged resources are additional resources—beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval—that are mobilized later as a direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO’s, foundations, governments, communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project’s ultimate objective.

Table showing final actual project expenditure by activity to be supplied by the UNEP Fund management Officer. (insert here)


IA own Financing (mill US$)

Government

(mill US$)

Other*

(mill US$)

Total

(mill US$)

Total Disbursement

(mill US$)

Planned

Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual

− Grants

− Loans/Concessional (compared to market rate)

− Credits

− Equity investments

− In-kind support

− Other (*) - - - - -

Totals


TOR Annex 7. Review of the Draft Report

Draft reports submitted to UNEP EOU are shared with the corresponding Programmeme or Project Officer and his or her supervisor for initial review and consultation. The DGEF staff and senior Executing Agency staff provide comments on the draft evaluation report. They may provide feedback on any errors of fact and may highlight the significance of such errors in any conclusions. The consultation also seeks agreement on the findings and recommendations. UNEP EOU collates the review comments and provides them to the evaluators for their consideration in preparing the final version of the report. General comments on the draft report with respect to compliance with these TOR are shared with the reviewer.

Quality Assessment of the Evaluation Report All UNEP GEF Mid Term Reports are subject to quality assessments by UNEP EOU. These apply GEF Office of Evaluation quality assessment and are used as a tool for providing structured feedback to the evaluator.

The quality of the draft evaluation report is assessed and rated against the following criteria:

GEF Report Quality Criteria UNEP EOU Assessment

Rating

A. Did the report present an assessment of relevant outcomes and achievement of project objectives in the context of the focal area programme indicators if applicable?

B. Was the report consistent and the evidence complete and convincing and were the ratings substantiated when used?

C. Did the report present a sound assessment of sustainability of outcomes?

D. Were the lessons and recommendations supported by the evidence presented?

E. Did the report include the actual project costs (total and per activity) and actual co-financing used?

F. Did the report include an assessment of the quality of the project M&E system and its use for project management?

UNEP EOU additional Report Quality Criteria UNEP EOU Assessment

Rating

G. Quality of the lessons: Were lessons readily applicable in other contexts? Did they suggest prescriptive action?

H. Quality of the recommendations: Did recommendations specify the actions necessary to correct existing conditions or improve operations (‘who?’ ‘what?’ ‘where?’ ‘when?)’. Can they be implemented? Did the recommendations specify a goal and an associated performance indicator?

I. Was the report well written? (clear English language and grammar)

J. Did the report structure follow EOU guidelines, were all requested Annexes included?

K. Were all evaluation aspects specified in the TORs adequately addressed?

L. Was the report delivered in a timely manner

GEF Quality of the MTE report = 0.3*(A + B) + 0.1*(C+D+E+F)

EOU assessment of MTE report = 0.3*(G + H) + 0.1*(I+J+K+L) Combined quality Rating = (2* ‘GEF EO’ rating + EOU rating)/3

The Totals are rounded and converted to the scale of HS to HU Rating system for quality of terminal evaluation reports A number rating 1-6 is used for each criterion: Highly Satisfactory = 6, Satisfactory = 5, Moderately Satisfactory = 4,

Moderately Unsatisfactory = 3, Unsatisfactory = 2, Highly Unsatisfactory = 1, and unable to assess = 0.


TOR Annex 8. List of intended additional recipients for the Terminal Evaluation (to be completed by the IA Task Manager)

Name Affiliation Email Aaron Zazuetta GEF Evaluation Office [email protected]

Government Officials

GEF Focal Point(s)

Executing Agency

Implementing Agency

Carmen Tavera UNEP DGEF Portfolio Manager


Annex 2: List of Interviewees and Evaluation Timeline

Name Method/Institution Date interviewed

Regional Collaborators Stas Burgiel By phone; US National Invasive Species Council (NISC) 30 Sept 2011

Ancillo Davis Questionnaire; The Nature Conservancy 14 Oct 2011

Frank Gourdin Questionnaire; SPAW 27 Oct 2011

Kristin MacLaughlin In person; UNEP-DGEF Task Manager, Washington DC, US 16 Sept/28 Oct 2011

James Morris Email exchange; US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organisation(NOAA)

17 Nov 2011

Silvia Renate Ziller Questionnaire and in person; The Horus Institute for Environmental Conservation and Development

24 Oct/Nov 2011

Arne Witt Questionnaire & In person; CABI Regional Coordinator for IAS (Africa/Asia)

13 Nov/6-7 Dec 2011

The Bahamas Leticia Anderson Questionnaire, National Project Coordinator 15 Dec 2011

Frederick E. Arnett II Questionnaire; Department of Marine Resources 24 Nov 2011

Charlene Carey Questionnaire; Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (BREEF)

17 Oct 2011

Lindy Knowles Questionnaire; Bahamas National Trust 18 Nov 2011

Stacy Lubin-Gray Questionnaire; BEST Commission 16 Dec 2011

Krista Sherman Questionnaire; Bahamas National Trust 17 Oct 2011

Nicola Smith Questionnaire; Bahamas Project Experiment Coordinator 19 Oct 2011

Dominican Republic Carlos Rijo Guilamo Questionnaire; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources

(National Coordinator) 23 Oct 2011

Yvonne Arias Questionnaire; Grupo Jaragua 13 Dec 2011

Sardis Medrano-Cabral Questionnaire; Instituo Dominicano de Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales

22 Nov 2011

Celeste Mir Questionnaire; National Museum of Natural History 29 Nov 2011

Francisco Nunez Questionnaire; The Nature Conservancy 1 Dec 2011

Jamaica Nelsa English-Johnson In person & questionnaire; National Coordinator, NEPA 21-23 Nov 2011

Anchor et al. In person; Local fishermen 23 Nov 2011

Leonie Barnaby In person & questionnaire; GEF Focal Point 22 Nov 2011

Dayne Buddo In person & questionnaire; UWI – Discovery Marine Lab 23 Nov/11 Oct 2011

Denise Chiri In person & questionnaire; UWI – Discovery Marine Lab 23 Nov 2011

Tracy Commock In person & questionnaire; Natural History Museum of Jamaica 22 Nov 2011

Suzanne Davis In person & questionnaire; Natural History Museum of Jamaica 22 Nov 2011

Andrea Donaldson In person & questionnaire; Ecosystems Management Branch, NEPA 22/4 Nov 2011

Novelette Douglas In person & questionnaire; NEPA 22/14 Nov 2011

Caryl Grant In person & questionnaire; Project Outreach and Awareness Officer 23 Nov 2011

Kurt McLaren In person & questionnaire; UWI – Dept. of Life Sciences 21/18 Nov 2011

Sheries Simpson In person & questionnaire; Planning and Monitoring Branch, NEPA 22 Nov 2011

Rick Van Veen In person; Iguana Project Team 23 Nov 2011

Byron Wilson In person & questionnaire; Head, Jamaica Iguana Recovery Group & Dept. of Life Sciences - UWI

23 Nov/31 Oct 2011

Saint Lucia

Ulrike Krause In person & questionnaire; National Coordinator 6-7/21 Oct 2011

Christopher Alexander In person & questionnaire; SLASPA 7 Oct 2011

Michael Bobb In person & questionnaire; Agriculture Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Nadia Cazaubon In person & questionnaire; SMMA 6/14 Oct 2011


Alwin Dornelly In person & questionnaire; Wildlife Unit, MALFF 6 Oct 2011

Seon Duncan Ferrari In person & questionnaire; Fisheries Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Sarah George In person & questionnaire; Fisheries Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Deepa Girdari In person & questionnaire; Tourism Officer 7 Oct 2011

Maria Grech In person & questionnaire; SLNT & SLAPS 7 Oct 2011

Anita James In person & questionnaire; Biodiversity Coordinator 7 Oct 2011

Mary Justin James In person & questionnaire; Wildlife Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Lyndon John In person & questionnaire; Forestry Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Lenn Isidore In person & questionnaire; Wildlife Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Nichole La Force In person & questionnaire; Forestry Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Ronald Moonie In person & questionnaire; Customs 7 Oct 2011

Matthew Morton In person & questionnaire; Durrell Wildlife Conservation 6 Oct 2011

Bernd Rac In person & questionnaire; Diving Association 7 Oct 2011

Donatian Gustave In person & questionnaire; Forestry Unit, MALFF 7 Oct 2011

Anthony Sammie In person; Maria Island 6 Oct 2011

Alwyn St. Omar In person & questionnaire; Artist, Creative Director 7 Oct 2011

Trinidad and Tobago

Lizz Johnson In person & questionnaire; Projects Regional Director; CABI 3 Oct 2011

Bob Ramnanan In person & questionnaire; Project’s Regional Coordinator; CABI 3 Oct /26 Oct 2011

Deneise Sham Ku Budget documents sent; Project’s Regional Accountant; CABI

Velda Ferguson-Dewsbury In person & questionnaire; National Coordinator 5/27 Oct 2011

Rondel Baily In person & questionnaire; EMA 5/7 Oct 2011

Richmond Basant In person & questionnaire; EMA 5/7 Oct 2011

Wayne De Chi In person & questionnaire; USDA 3 Oct 2011

Boris Fabres In person; Island Conservation 5 Oct 2011

Diana Francis In person & questionnaire; IICA 3 Oct 2011

Farzan Hosein In person & questionnaire; Team Leader Nariva Pilot Project 4 Oct 2011

Alana Jute In person & questionnaire; IMA 5/12 Oct 2011

Bruce Laukner In person & questionnaire; CARDI 3 Oct 2011

Lori Lee Lum In person & questionnaire; Institute of Marine Affairs 5 Oct/23 Nov 2011

Cynthra Persad In person & questionnaire; Central Experiment Station, Land and Marine Affairs

4 Oct/

Khama Philp In person & questionnaire; IMA 5/14 Oct 2011

Govind Seepersad In person & questionnaire; UWI 3 Oct 2011


Annex 3: A List of Documents Reviewed / Consulted

Note: Documents received by the Reviewer after the Evaluation was complete are marked with ^ Global

- Helping Islands Adapt:Info.doc.6 (Background and Scoping Report) - Invasive Alien Species: A Comprehensive Model State Law, 2004

Regional

- Agriculture in the Caribbean: Situation and Outlook - Building Capacity to Measure IAS Impacts in the Caribbean: Workshop Training Workbook, 2010 - Factsheet: Caribbean Efforts Against Invasive Species - Fifth Draft Strategy and Action Plan for Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean 2011-2015 (Draft Final) - GEF Project Identification Form - In a Nutshell: Invasion of Alien Species - Invasives in MesoAmerica and the Caribbean, 2001 - I3N Report: Training on I3N Database, Risk and Pathways Assessments - Main Decisions of the Second International Project Steering Committee (IPSC) Meeting - Minutes of the First International Project Steering Committee Meeting, 2009 - ^Mitigating the Threat of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean: Report on Project Development

Grant (PPG) Stakeholder Meeting, 2008 - ^National Legislative Framework on Invasive Alien Species in Selected Caribbean Island States, 2008 - Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) for the Full Size Project “Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien

Species in the Insular Caribbean (‘Project Document’) - Project Identification Form (PIF) - Request for CEO Endorsement/Approval, February 2009 - UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2010 - UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2011

- SPAW Newsletter, No 12, January 2011

- Stop Invasive Alien Species (IAS) from Entering, Invading and Affecting our Caribbean Islands

- Sustainable Conservation of Globally Important Caribbean Bird Habitats: Strengthening a Regional Network

for a Shared Resource

- ^STAP advice on a lionfish control projects within: GEF project 3729, Building a Sustainable National Marine Protected Area Network (The Bahamas); and GEF project 3813, Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean (Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago), June 2009

- Trade and Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean a Universe of Risk: IUCN Report, 2009

- The Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Marine Invasive Species Workshop Proceedings and Final Report, 2007

- UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2010

- UNEP GEF PIR Fiscal Year 2010

- What is CISWG; Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group?

- Workshop Report: Development of a Regional IAS Strategy and Building Capacity to Measure IAS Impacts in

the Caribbean

The Bahamas - Bahamas Lionfish Control Project: Goals, Challenges, Opportunities and Preliminary Results

- Bahamas National Invasive Species Strategy, 2011

- ^Consultancy as STAP Representative to GEF Projects in the Bahamas Inception Workshop 30-31 March

2010, John MacManus, July 2010 and Comments provided on this report by James A. Morris, Jr. of NOAA

Ocean Service, December 2010

- Draft National Biodiversity Strategy (NBS), The Commonwealth of The Bahamas

- ^Final Report: Consultancy as STAP Representative to GEF Projects in the Bahamas Inception Workshop,

2010

- Fourth National Biodiversity Report of the Bahamas to the UNCBD, 2011

- IAS SP 7 Tracking Tool The Bahamas

- Minutes NISS Stakeholder Workshop, 21 September 2011

- Revision of the National Invasive Species Strategy, 2011

- Revision of the National Invasive Species Strategy: Report of Stakeholder Interviews, 2011


- The Commonwealth of The Bahamas National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 1999

- The National Invasive Species Strategy for The Bahamas, 2003

- The Sea Around Us Project Newsletter, Issue 63 – January/February 2011

The Dominican Republic - Baseline Studies for the Pilot Projects

- Critical Situation Analysis Evaluation for Invasive Alien Species

- Dominican Republic Project Profile “Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean”

- Evaluation of the Knowledge of Invasive Alien Species and Biodiversity

- Fourth National Biodiversity Report of the Dominican Republic, 2010

- IAS SP 7 Tracking Tool The Dominican Republic

- Invasive Alien Species: An Impact on Biodiversity

- Invasive Alien Species in the Dominican Republic

- Invasive Animals Threaten the Biodiversity

- Ministerial Resolution on Invasive Alien Species

- Mitigating the Impacts of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean

- National Strategy for Invasive Alien Species, 2011

- Proposed methods for Eradication of Rats on Alto Velo

- Restoration of Isla Cabritos for the Protection of Ricord’s Iquana and the Rhinocerous Iguana

Jamaica - Alien Species: How Much Do You Know?

- Black River Fact Sheet

- Convention on Biological Diversity, Third National Report for Jamaica, 2003-2004

- Don’t Pack An Alien

- Draft Invasive Alien Species and Action Plan, 2009

- Jamaica’s Project Profile “Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean”

- IAS SP 7 Tracking Tool Jamaica

- Let’s Eat It To Beat It

- Lionfish Recipes

- Lionfish Brochure

- Medical Response to Lionfish

- Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean Project (Banner)

- Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean Project (Brochure)

- Name That Invasive Alien Species

- National Strategy and Action Plan on Biological Diversity in Jamaica, 2003

- Outline of the Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean Lionfish Project

- Radio PSA

- Results from Technical Review of the Iguana Pilot

- The Invasion

- Trap the Mongoose

- Miscellaneous newspaper articles

Saint Lucia - Alien Green Iguanas in Soufriere

- Alien Iguana Eradication Programme, 2009

- AVMA Guidelines for Euthanasia, 2007

- Critical Situation Analysis (CSA) of IAS Status and Management, Saint Lucia, 2010

- External presentations and associated documents

- IAS SP 7 Tracking Tool Saint Lucia

- Iguana dissection photos

- Improving our Chances of Catching Green Iguanas Once We Find Them Workshop Reports

- Integrated Management of the Invasive Cocoa Pathogen Moniliophthora roreri

- Invasive Alien Species (IAS) Awareness Baseline Survey, Saint Lucia, 2010


- Invasive Alien Species Management: Communication, Education, Public Awareness Strategy and Actions,

2010

- Invasive Alien Species Management in Saint Lucia and Caribbean Partner Countries

- Invasive Alien Species “IAS” Threatening Saint Lucia

- Invasions of Hylesia metabus (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae, Hemileucinae) into Trinidad, West Indies - Invasive Plant Management Symposium documents

- Invasive Plant Management in Saint Lucia and in Collaboration with Caribbean Neighbors, 2010

- Legislation for Invasive Species, Saint Lucia: Inception Report, 2011

- Lionfish Task Force documents

- List of Saint Lucia IAS Working Group and GEF Steering Committee Members

- Minutes of Aquatic IAS Subcommittee Meetings

- Minutes of Lionfish Task Force Meetings

- Miscellaneous alien iguana reports and correspondence

- Miscellaneous correspondence

- Miscellaneous external workshop documents

- Miscellaneous floral research documents

- Miscellaneous meeting documents

- National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of Saint Lucia, 2000

- National Invasive Species Strategy for Saint Lucia: Aquatic Ecosystems, 2010

- National Invasive Species Strategy for Saint Lucia: Communications, Education and Public Awareness

Strategy, 2010

- National Invasive Species Strategy for Saint Lucia: Pathways, 2010

- National Invasive Species Strategy for Saint Lucia: Summary of Conclusions and Consultations, 2011

- National Invasive Species Strategy for Saint Lucia: Terrestrial Ecosystems, 2010

- National Marine Invasive Species – Lionfish Stakeholder Meeting, 2011

- Native and Alien Iguanas on Saint Lucia, West Indies

- Project Steering Committee documents (mostly minutes)

- Rapid Assessment of the Status of Coral Reefs in Saint Lucia Following Hurricane Thomas

- Red Lionfish Poster

- Rat eradication signage

- Reef Check Training Report

- Saint Lucia’s Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009

- Saint Lucia Iguana

- Saint Lucia Nation Invasive Species Strategy (flyer)

- Saint Lucia’s Project Profile “Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean”

- Soufriere Marine Management Area

- Summary Report for Exploring the use of Scat Detection Dogs to survey for the Saint Lucian Alien Iguana,

2011

- The Saint Lucia Whiptail Lizard Project

- What is an Invasive Species?

- Wildlife strategic meetings documents

- Visit the Maria Islands

Trinidad and Tobago - ^An Invasive Species Strategy for Trinidad and Tobago, 2011

- Baseline Study for the Maintenance of Native Biodiversity in the Nariva Swamp

- Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan for Trinidad and Tobago

- Development of an Awareness Campaign on Aquatic IAS in Trinidad and Tobago

- Fourth National of Trinidad and Tobago to the Convention on Biological Diversity

- ^Frosty Pod Rot on Coca, 2011

- ^Frosty Pod Rot on Coca Training Manual, 2010

- Frosty Pod Rot Survey Poster

- ^Keep Frosty Pod Out of Trinidad and Tobago

- IAS SP 7 Tracking Tool Trinidad and Tobago

- ^Look Out for the Lionfish poster


- ^Mitigating the Threat of Invasive Alien Species in the Insular Caribbean: A Trinidad and Tobago Perspective

brochure

- Pathway Risk Assessment for the Introduction of Frosty Pod Rot of Cocoa in Trinidad and Tobago

- Preventing Entry of Moliophthora roreri (causal agent of frosty pod rot of cocoa) into Trinidad and Tobago,

2011 (Consultancy Report)

- ^Red Palm Mite Threatens Coconut and Moriche Palms in the Nariva Swamp poster

- Revised Objectives and Methodology for the Nariva Swamp – Palm Pest Project

- ^The Threat of the Lionfish, Daily Express Article, 2010

- Trinidad and Tobago Project Profile “Mitigating the Threats of Invasive Alien Species in the Caribbean”


Annex 4: Co-financing and Leveraged Resources (data as of 30/6/2011, supplied by CABI)


EA own Financing (mill US$)

Government (mill US$)

Other* (mill US$)

Total (mill US$)

Total Disbursement (mill US$)

Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Planned Actual Grants 0.060 0.013 1.834 0.301 0.566 0.133 2.460 0.448 Loans/Concessional (compared to market rate)

Credits Equity investments In-kind support 0.120 0.016 1.365 0.419 1.003 0.248 2.489 0.683 Other (*) Leveraged Resources

0.090 0.003 0.276 0.369

Totals

0.180 0.119 3.199 0.724 1.570 0.656 4.949 1.500

* Other is referred to contributions mobilized for the project from other multilateral agencies, bilateral development cooperation agencies, NGOs, the private sector and beneficiaries.

Leveraged Resources Leveraged resources are additional resources—beyond those committed to the project itself at the time of approval—that are mobilized later as a direct result of the project. Leveraged resources can be financial or in-kind and they may be from other donors, NGO’s, foundations, governments, communities or the private sector. Please briefly describe the resources the project has leveraged since inception and indicate how these resources are contributing to the project’s ultimate objective.


Annex 5: Sources of Project Co-financing (cash and in-kind contributions)

as of 30 June 2011 Annex Note: Acronyms used without definition were not provided to the Reviewer. UNEP may wish to request that these are spelled out and/or included in the abbreviation/acronym list at the beginning of the document.

Source of Co-financing Cash Contributions In-kind Contributions Leveraged

Budget at time of GEF

approval

Budget latest

revision (forecast)

Received to date (actual)

Budget at time of GEF

approval

Budget latest

revision (forecast)



US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$ US$

Department of Marine Resources (DMR)

35,214 72,552

Bahamas National Trust (BNT)

4,557 25,822

Bahamas Environment, Science & Technology (BEST) Commission 7,405

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 5,941

Bahamas Reef Environmental Education Foundation (BREEF) 3,723

Sub- Total Bahamas - Planned

171,965

171,965

39,771 184,262

184,262

115,443

Cape Eleithera Institute (CEI) 18,880

AUTEC (US Navy) 2,600

Dolphin Encounters 5,427

Stuart Cove's Dive Bahamas 2,907

Ecomar 10,190

Forfar Field Station 30

Bahamas Marine Exporters Association (BMEA) 3,538

Dominican Republic

321,000

321,000

880 300,100

300,100

25,749 3,428

Grupo Jaragua 883

Jardin Botánico Nacional 1,887


Parque Zoológico Dominicano (ZOODOM) 589

Museo de Historia Natural 989

Dirección General de Ganadería 505

Acuario Nacional 649

Concejo Dominicano de Pesca y Acuacultur (CODOPESCA) 505

Instituto Dominicano de las Investigaciones Agropecuarias y Forestales (IDIAF) 611

Instituto Tecnológico de Santo Domingo (INTEC) 63

Universidad Nacional Pedro Henríquez Ureña (UNPHU) 295

Universidad Central del Este (UCE) 270

Universidad Autónoma de Santo Domingo (UASD) 1,170

Fundación Loma Quita Espuela 295

Sociedad Ecológica del Cibao (SOECI) 590

Sociedad Ornitológica de la Hispaniola (SOH) 158

Sanidad Vegetal 237

Dirección General de Aduanas 85

Jamaica

664,930

664,930

31,234 325,028

325,028

54,860

Saint Lucia Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry and Fisheries (MALFF)

56,506

238,889

Durrell Wildlife Conservaton Trust (DWCT)

11,783

91,632

Sub-Total - St Lucia Planned

270,000

270,000

68,289 400,000

400,000

330,521


Association for the Conservation of Threatened Parrots (ACTP) 55,457

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) 4,001

DIREN [French Dept for the Environment] 611

Government of Montserrat 306

Saint Lucia National Trust (SLNT) 7,355

University of Kent 1,269

Melvin Smith & Roger Graveson 801

Saint Lucia Dive Association (ANBAGLO) 160

Trinidad and Tobago

406,288

406,288

177,659 155,794

155,794

26,770

CABI

60,000

60,000

13,040 120,000

120,000

16,063 90,354

Sub-total - National

1,894,183

1,894,183

330,873

1,485,184

1,485,184

569,406 217,095

UNEP CAR/RCU

40,000

40,000 60,000

60,000

APHIS

40,000

40,000

38,790 40,000

40,000

41,210 57,910

CERMES

22,400

22,400

CARICOM

5,000

5,000 300,000

300,000

CARINET

17,200

17,200 8,850

8,850

ELI 20,000

20,000

20,000 7,200

FAMU

60,000

60,000 80,000

80,000

FAO 100,000

100,000

4,400

IABIN

20,000

20,000 34,500

34,500

2,300 4,504

IICA

15,000

15,000

4,988 25,000

25,000

8,060

CISWIG

4,550

4,550 5,850

5,850

GISP

100,000

100,000

6,000 100,000

100,000

10,982

RAC REMPEITC 70,000

70,000

4,000 3,000


SUSTRUST

20,000

20,000 15,000

15,000

5,000

TNC

82,095

82,095

66,882 14,164

14,164

14,164

UF-IFAS

40,000

40,000 80,000

80,000

UWI

3,100

Difference between Table 10 and Table 11 - PCA

100,000

100,000 50,000

50,000

CaRAPN 9,572

Hilton Trinidad 9,240

UTT 2,223

CDB 3,602

NOAA 12,500

SPAW 17,500

ICRI 12,500

Reef 12,500

Sub-total - Regional/International

566,245

566,245

116,660 1003,364

1003,364

113,216 152,251

Total

2,460,428

2,460,428

447,533

2,488,548

2,488,548

682,622 369,346

Comment from Regional Coordinator: Co-finance contributions under reported by Jamaica – collaborator has not provided statements.


Annex 6: Sustainable Conservation of Mitigating the Threats Project Actual Reported

Expenditure by Area (for period 23/09/2009 -30/09/2011, data supplied by CABI)

Project Budget

Cumulative Expenditure

to 30 Sep 2011

Unspent

balance of

budget

US$ US$ US$ UNEP BUDGET LINE

10

PROJECT PERSONNEL COMPONENT

1100 Project Personnel

Bahamas

1101 Full time national project coordinator (at senior researcher rate) @$0 pm

50,000 36,266 13,734

Dominican Republic


120,000 37,215 82,785

Jamaica


120,000 59,110 60,890

St Lucia


120,000 55,239 64,761

Trinidad & Tobago


120,000 43,440 76,560

CABI

1106 Regional project Consultation & Coordination

192,000 92,362 99,638


(Part-time)

1107 Regional project administrator/accountant (Part-time)

60,000 33,888 26,112

1199 Sub-total 782,000 357,519 424,481

1200 Consultants

Bahamas

1201 Consultants for national IAS strategy, action plan & guidelines (0 pm @$0 p/d)

0 2,500 (2,500)

Dominican Republic


28,000 4,051 23,949

Jamaica


28,000 1,557 26,443

St Lucia


28,000 7,850 20,150

Trinidad & Tobago


28,000 1,250 26,750

1299 Sub-total 112,000 17,208 94,792

1300 Administrative/Technical Support

Bahamas

1301 Technical/Field/A

dmin staff 0 0


Dominican Republic


dmin staff 0 0

Jamaica


dmin staff 0 0

St Lucia


dmin staff 11,966 (11,966)

Trinidad & Tobago


dmin staff 0 0

1399 Sub-total 0 11,966 -11,966

1600 Travel on Official Business

Bahamas

1601 Local travel and

subsistence 6,490 4,988 1,502

1602 International

travel 0 0 0

Dominican Republic


subsistence 27,600 2,801 24,799

1602 International

travel 0 673 (673)

Jamaica


subsistence 58,000 9,625 48,375

1602 International

travel 0 1,816 (1,816)

St Lucia


subsistence 40,000 22,189 17,811

1602 International

travel 0 721 (721)

Trinidad & Tobago


subsistence 4,793 16 4,777

1602 International

travel 0 0 0


CABI


subsistence 2,000 133 1,867

1602 International

travel 10,000 1,600 8,400

1699 Sub-total 148,883 44,563 104,320

1999 Component Total 1042,883 431,256 611,627

20 SUB CONTRACT COMPONENT

2200 Subcontracts

Bahamas

2201 Consultant to conduct baseline survey

0 0 0

2202 Consultants - Communication & Dissemination

0 1,750 (1,750)

2203 Consultants - Regulatory Impact Assessment

0 0 0

2204 Consultants – Rapid Response (0pm@$0 p/d)

0 0 0

2205 Consultants - Pilot site project staff (0 pm @$0 p/d)

13,710 5,000 8,710

2206 Consultants - Training in fish identification and survey methodologies

7,500 (7,500)

Dominican Republic


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0


80,288 8,666 71,622

Jamaica

2201 Consultant to conduct baseline

20,000 0 20,000


survey


62,000 12,416 49,584


15,000 0 15,000


10,000 0 10,000


141,245 13,904 127,341

St Lucia


10,000 4,450 5,550


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0

Trinidad & Tobago


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0


0 0 0


135,715 3,572 132,144

2299 Sub-total 487,958 57,257 430,701

2999 Component Total 487,958 57,257 430,701

30 TRAINING COMPONENT

3200 Group Training


Bahamas

3201 Group training on Surveillance & Control

0 0 0

3202 Group training in IAS issues for local communities in pilot sites

20,959 14,253 6,707

3203 Training in IAS

issues 0 0 0

3204 PhD training in

IAS issues 0 0 0

Dominican Republic


0 0 0


0 0 0


issues 0 0 0


IAS issues 0 0 0

Jamaica


37,000 7,687 29,314


0 335 (335)


issues 0 571 (571)


IAS issues 0 0 0

St Lucia


21,700 24,987 (3,287)


0 0 0


issues 25,765 7,497 18,268


IAS issues 0 0 0

Trinidad & Tobago


0 0 0



6,905 814 6,091


issues 42,381 15,516 26,865


IAS issues 0 0 0

3299 Sub-total 154,710 71,660 83,051

3300 Group Training

Bahamas

3301 Public Meetings on Pilot Project Activities

2,434 0 2,434

3302 Meetings to formulate national IAS strategy, action plan & guidelines

9,000 1,509 7,491

3303 Meetings to develop Regional Strategies on IAS

10,000 9,754 246

3304 Regional and international meetings relevant to IAS

5,000 4,379 621

3305 National steering committee and technical committee meetings

12,000 764 11,236

3306 International project meetings(inc. MTR)

12,000 13,754 (1,754)

Dominican Republic


0 4 (4)


9,000 7,510 1,490


10,000 7,813 2,187


5,000 0 5,000

3305 National steering committee and technical committee

12,000 1,064 10,936


meetings


12,000 12,918 (918)

Jamaica


10,000 621 9,379


9,000 0 9,000


10,000 15,104 (5,104)


5,000 0 5,000


12,000 647 11,353


12,000 9,266 2,735

St Lucia


0 0 0


9,000 2,574 6,426


10,000 16,444 (6,444)


5,000 4,341 659


12,000 688 11,312


12,000 4,752 7,248


Trinidad & Tobago


1,587 0 1,587


9,000 0 9,000


10,000 14,875 (4,875)


5,000 3,597 1,403


12,000 741 11,259


12,000 5,437 6,563

CABI


10,000 5,496 4,504

3399 Sub-total 264,021 144,050 119,971

3999 Component Total 418,731 215,709 203,022

40

EQUIPMENT AND PREMISES COMPONENT

4100 Expendable Equipment

Bahamas

4101 Field, lab and office consumables for Pilot sites

25,618 13,164 12,454

4102 Field, lab and office consumables for project management

2,000 1,554 446

Dominican Republic


59,450 441 59,009



2,000 458 1,542

Jamaica


32,200 0 32,200


2,000 1,052 948

St Lucia


40,462 2,340 38,122


2,000 1,162 838

Trinidad & Tobago


33,828 2,292 31,536


2,000 127 1,873

CABI


2,000 619 1,381

4199 Sub-total 203,558 23,209 180,349

4200 Non-expendable Equipment

Bahamas

4201 Non-expendable equipment for Pilot Projects

48,674 10,115 38,558


4202 Non-expendable equipment for project management

8,500 7,253 1,247

Dominican Republic


43,215 5,929 37,286


8,500 10,572 (2,072)

Jamaica


59,795 10,349 49,446


8,500 1,381 7,119

St Lucia


98,308 19,288 79,020


8,500 5,054 3,446

Trinidad & Tobago


72,221 16,846 55,375


8,500 1,465 7,035

CABI


8,500 4,499 4,001

4299 Sub-total 373,213 92,752 280,461

4999 Component Total 576,771 115,960 460,810

50 MISCELLANEOUS COMPONENT

5100 Operation and


Maintenance of Equipment

Bahamas

5101 Operation and maintenance of national project management equipment

2,000 299 1,701

5102 Operation and maintenance costs of vehicles

10 (10)

Dominican Republic


2,000 0 2,000


0 0

Jamaica


2,000 0 2,000


0 0

St Lucia


2,000 852 1,148


4,988 (4,988)

Trinidad & Tobago


2,000 0 2,000


0 0

CABI

5101 Operation and maintenance of national project

2,000 97 1,903


management equipment

5199 Sub-total 12,000 6,246 5,754

5200 Reporting Costs

Bahamas

5201 Project auditing (4 person months) once a yr

12,000 2,983 9,017

5202 Production of awareness-raising radio and television broadcasts

6,867 1,450 5,417

5203 Production of awareness-raising printed materials

7,867 910 6,957

5204 Reporting to facilitate external communication and information exchange

2,800 0 2,800

5205 Production of invasive species regional strategy

3,494 1,868 1,626

5206 Production of pilot site interpretation materials

2,500 1,387 1,113

Dominican Republic


12,000 2,983 9,017


22,794 1,749 21,045


15,659 531 15,128


3,600 0 3,600


3,800 1,688 2,112


2,500 839 1,661

Jamaica



12,000 2,983 9,017


32,000 23 31,977


3,000 1,233 1,767


3,600 0 3,600


3,800 1,868 1,932


2,500 0 2,500

St Lucia


12,000 2,983 9,017


11,760 12,982 (1,222)


17,306 7,005 10,301


3,600 0 3,600


3,800 1,868 1,932


8,389 443 7,946

Trinidad & Tobago


12,000 2,989 9,011


9,937 0 9,937


18,873 1,238 17,635



3,600 0 3,600


3,800 3,179 621


2,500 0 2,500

CABI


12,000 2,983 9,017

5299 Sub-total 272,347 58,165 214,182

5300 Sundry

Bahamas

5301 Website and electronic networking systems

4,000 602 3,398

5302 Communication for capacity building for IAS prevention & management

3,800 1,685 2,115

5303 Communication for project management

2,580 1,727 853

5304 Casual labour for IAS management

10,281 4,752 5,529

Dominican Republic


4,000 602 3,398


3,800 9 3,791


5,580 496 5,084


25,768 260 25,508

Jamaica

5301 Website and electronic

4,000 602 3,398


networking systems


3,800 0 3,800


5,580 738 4,842


11,000 0 11,000

St Lucia


4,000 602 3,398


8,400 112 8,288


5,580 1,571 4,009


0 15,897 (15,897)

Trinidad & Tobago


4,000 1,489 2,511


3,800 0 3,800


5,580 2,132 3,448


32,541 1,738 30,803

CABI


5,248 949 4,299

5399 Sub-total 153,338 35,964 117,374

5500 Evaluation

Bahamas


5501 Mid-Term & Terminal Evaluation - UNEP

14000 0 14,000

Dominican Republic


14000 0 14,000

Jamaica


14000 0 14,000

St Lucia


14000 0 14,000

Trinidad & Tobago


14000 0 14,000

5599 Sub-total 70,000 0 70,000

5999 Component Total 507,685 100,375 407,310

3,034,027 920,558 2,113,469

Bahamas 298,574 152,174 146,400

Dominican Republic 532,554 109,272 423,282

Jamaica 749,020 152,886 596,134

St Lucia 533,570 240,845 292,725

Trinidad & Tobago 616,561 122,753 493,808

CABI 303,748 142,627 161,121

Total 3,034,027 920,558 2,113,469


Annex 7. Short Profile of the Evaluator

Jamie K. Reaser, BS (College of William and Mary), PhD (Stanford University) has over 20 years of experience in the fields of environmental conservation and sustainable development, largely at the science-policy interface. She also has extensive experience in communication psychology and leadership development. Since 1999, her work has primarily focused on IAS. While a Biodiversity and Foreign Affairs officer at the US Department of State, she initiated the US government’s first international policy programme on IAS and coordinated the government-wide interagency committee that created the International Cooperation component of the first US National Invasive Species Management Plan. She is the former Assistant Director of the US National Invasive Species Council (NISC), as well as a former Vice Chair of the Board and Executive Director of the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP). In these roles, she: a) directed regional workshops on IAS for Ministries of Environment and Agriculture which resulted in the first IAS assessments and strategies for the Nordic-Baltic, Austral Pacific, South America, South-East Asia, and Southern Africa; b) co-directed international experts consultations on IAS in island and inland water ecosystems; c) co-founded the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN); and d) coordinated multiple initiatives to investigate and raise awareness of the linkages between IAS and development assistance. Since 2003, Dr. Reaser has served as a senior consultant on IAS issues to non-governmental organizations, US federal agencies, inter-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Examples of products include: Reaser, J. K. and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2011. Guidance for

Parties on the Development and Implementation of National Invasive Species Strategies and Action Plans. SCBD, Montreal, Canada.

Reaser, J. K. and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SCBD). 2011. Considerations

for Implementing International Standards and Codes of Conduct in National Invasive Species Strategies and Plans. SCBD, Montreal, Canada.

Reaser, J. K. 2010. International Agreements. The Encyclopedia of Invasive Species. Pages 4-7 in

Simberloff, D. and M. Rejmanek (eds). Encyclopedia of Biological Invasions. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

DiTomaso, J. M., J. K. Reaser, C. P. Dionigi, O. C. Doering, E. Chilton, J. D. Schardt, and J. N. Barney.

2010.Biofuel vs bioinvasion: seeding policy priorities. Environmental Science & Technology. Online at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es100640y

Reaser, J. K. and J. Waugh. 2009. Biosecurity, international trade, and invasive species: improving US capacity to assess risk. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management 12: 352-367. Reaser, J. K., L. A. Meyerson, and B. Von Holle. 2008. Saving camels from straws: how propagule pressure- based policies can reduce the risk of biological invasion. Biological Invasions 10: 1085-1098. Reaser, J. K. and J. Waugh. 2007. Denying Entry: Opportunities to Build Capacity to Prevent the

Introduction of Invasive Species and Improve Biosecurity at US Ports. IUCN-World Conservation Union, Washington, DC.

Reaser, J. K., L. Meyerson, Q. Cronk, M. De Poorter, L. Eldredge, E. Green, M. Kairo, P. Latasi, R. Mack, J. Mauremootoo, D. O’Dowd, W. Orapa, S. Sastroutomo, A. Saunders, C. Shine, S. Thrainsson, and

L. Vaiutu. 2007. The ecological and socioeconomic impacts of invasive alien species in island ecosystems. Environmental Conservation 34: 98-111.

She currently serves on the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG) and as an appointed member of the US Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC).


Annex 8: Pilot Project Assessment

Lionfish Pilot Project - Bahamas

IAS = Invasive alien species LF = lionfish

Strategic Planning Reviewer Comments 1.Desired final outcome: (What was the overall desired outcome on lionfish populations and biodiversity?)

• Preliminary lionfish population control experiment. (see revised study objectives in baseline survey report previously submitted).

• Establishment of and training in lionfish collection and handling protocol. To train individuals in human and safe means of collecting lionfish for management and research purposes.

• Research into lionfish invasion ecology. Fill research gaps and deficiencies for LF to aid resource managers and decision makers in effective management through the distribution of 3 seed grants.

• Policy and regulatory reform to aid lionfish management. To amend legislation (Fisheries Regulations) to support management goals specific to LF that is otherwise prohibited. i.e. spearfishing tournaments, removals on SCUBA, spearfishing within restricted limits from the shoreline.

• Public education and awareness campaign. To increase awareness of environmental threats, including invasive species and lionfish in particular, thus controlling their populations by encouraging the targeting of LF as a fishery resource.

• The lionfish pilots are considered by interviewees to be among the top achievements of the GEF project thus far.

• The stated outcomes do not reflect actual measures of lionfish population control. Understandably this is difficult to achieve without baseline data, but some coarse-scale evaluation is encouraged in this regard.

• The ability to show measurable impact will be important in acquiring long-term funding and policy impact.

2. Measures of success:

• Comparison of lionfish population growth rates within and between experimental habitat types with varying removal frequency schedules. Not yet documented

• Tangible outcome of pamphlet. Basic protocols

• Number of individuals and organizations that have received training: � Individuals trained up to REEF Level 5: 4 � Individuals trained to REEF Level 4: 3 � Individuals trained to REEF Level 3: 4 � Total Trained in REEF @ 11 � Total individuals trained in LF Collection and Dissection protocols

@ 13 (incl 11 from REEF training)

• Organizations trained: 6 (DMR, TNC, BNT, BREEF, CEI & BEST)

• Number of individuals and organizations that have participated in monitoring or removal efforts: 8 organizations (+REEF & SFU), 20 individuals CEI-4, DMR-4, BREEF-3, Exp Coord-1, BNT-2, BEST-1, TNC-1, REEF-1, SFU-1, Stuart Cove’s-2

• Research results that enable gaps in knowledge to be filled and direct management

• Number of grants awarded and completed

• Number of research funding leverages because of grants

• Completed policy and regulatory review

• Amendments made to policies and regulations to address gaps,

•


deficiencies and conflict identified by review

• Increased knowledge of targeted sectors and general public about lionfish in progress

• Increased sector and public involvement in efforts to manage the lionfish

3. Context (working where, when, and with whom): Note: All agencies listed below with DMR except where specified.

• Eleuthera (EL), New Providence (NP), Exuma (EX), Andros (AN)

• Department of Marine Resources (DMR)/Executing Agency: NP, Exuma & Andros (All aspects of the project)

• Recreational dive operators – Stuart Cove’s Dive Bahamas, NP; Control Experiment & Training

• College of the Bahamas Marine and Environmental Studies Institute – no longer operational

• Bahamas National Trust – Exuma & NP; Control Experiment, NISS, NSC,

• Cape Eleuthera Institute – EL, (Also works with REEF & SFU)

• Bahamas Reef Environmental Education Foundation – NP, Andros, Exuma/Education & Outreach, NISS, NSC, Control Experiment, CIAS Strategy

• Reef Environmental Education Foundation – NP & EL, Control Exp, Training

• Local fisherman – NP, EX, EL

• Nicola Smith University of British Columbia – Experiment Coordinator

• Stephanie Green, Simon Fraser University – EL

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Aquatic Invasive Species Program – Lionfish capture, handling and cleaning protocols,

• Gerace Reseach Centre – San Salvador, Seed Grants

• Perry Marine Institute – Exuma/Collaboration on scientific pa

•

• Attorney-General’s office, NP – CIAS Strategy

• BEST Commission – NP, NSC, NISS, Control Strategy, Project Management, CIAS Strategy (Terrestrial Working Group)

• TNC Northern Caribbean Program – NP, Control Exp, NSC, NISS, CIAS Strategy (Terrestrial & Marine)

• Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group (CSWIG)

• CABI

• Invasive Species Specialist Group (ISSG)

• TNC Invasive Species Team

• Bahamas Information Service - Education & Outreach

• This project has done a good job in engaging stakeholders and should serve as a model in this regard for other projects.

4. Influence (effect of outcome on other relevant activities/initiatives):

• Influencing goals and management activities specified in The National Lionfish Response Plan.

• Increase in requests for lionfish culinary demonstrations at National Expeditions and events.

• Increase interest in participation in regional and international meeting relevant to IAS.

• Increase in request for disseminating/sharing materials related to LF and cleaning & handling guidelines.

•

5. Barrier to success (actual and perceived): Limited access to capital funding during upcoming election season/or immediately following, inclement weather to execute field expeditions, unavailability of vessels @

• Any substantial barriers should be addressed through the IPSC as feasible.


AN site, unavailability and relocation of task team members.

6. Existing resources: SCUBA certified individuals/field support, personnel initially trained in LF handling and collection protocols, vessels in NP & EX, administrative support, vehicles, accommodations in ECLSP (Exuma Cays Land & Sea Park), LF educational materials (postcards & brochures), National Lionfish Response Plan, LF Capture, Handling & Shipping Protocol….

7. Needed resources:

• Policy and legislative review

• National stakeholder meeting

• Legal expertise

• Stakeholder consultations

• Public awareness materials

• Seed grants

• Grant administration

• Workshops (2)

• Protocol publication

• Experiment coordinator

• Travel

• Expendable supplies (e.g., fish euthanizing drugs, underwater paper, clipboards, dive flats and floats)

• Small Capital Equipment (e.g., lionfish collecting nets, three prong paralyzer tip spears, lionfish specimen collection bags, marine coolers)

• Communications specialist

• Vessel rental for Andros field expeditions

• Replacement of some dive gear

• This project has done a good job at acquiring/producing needed resources.

8. Implementation activities (ideally in chronological order):

• Preliminary lionfish population control experiment [Yr 1-2; Status?] � Hired Experiment Coordinator, Nicola Smith. � Identified lionfish task team and training needs. � Designed experiment in consultation with SFU, NOAA, REEF,

University of Oregon. � Purchased equipment for control experiment. � Develop criteria for experimental site for each habitat type. � Initiated training for lionfish task team, establishing a

coordinated unit amongst 6 partner organization. � Completed site selection for 4 habitat types on 3 islands. � NP Coral reef sites did not meet criteria based on LF densities,

therefore experiment transferred to Andros to select adequate experimental site.

� Initiated monthly proficiency dives for task team. � Collected baseline data for experimental sites at all locations. � Implemented roving diver and belt transect surveys to monitor

native fish and LF size & abundance at all sites. � Implemented lionfish removals in EL, NP & AN sites.

• Establishment of and training in lionfish collection and handling protocol [Yrs 1-4; Status?] � Eleven individuals trained in protocol lead by REEF & SFU. � Bahamas participated in regional consultations (spearheaded

by NOAA, REEF, SFU, SPAW) to develop regional lionfish strategy, inclusive of a LF capture and handling protocol (to be published and disseminated by Jan 2012). Tool used as the training manual for Bahamas representatives.

• The project leads are encouraged to package lessons learned and training modules for transfer to all other countries dealing with, or likely to be invaded by, lionfish.

• See notes under the table on implementation.


� Rather than duplicate efforts, regional strategy and protocol will be utilized to facilitate this deliverable.

• Research into reproductive biology and invasion ecology [Yrs 1-3; Status?] � Engaged COB-Gerace Research Centre to administer and

manage seed grants. � Identified research gaps � Developed draft call for proposals and circulated for review

to CABI, UNEP, the scientific community (national and international) and Science & Conservation Unit (DMR)

� Call for proposals announcement to be initiated in Dec 2011. � Proposals to be selected in Feb. 2012.

• Policy and regulatory reform to aid lionfish management [Yrs 1-3; Status?] Draft amendments prepared and submitted to decision makers. Attorney General’s (AG’s) office has re-amended and circulated legal language for review. Currently in 2nd review cycle by the AG’s office.

• Public awareness campaign [Yrs 1-4; Status?] Baseline public awareness surveys administered on NP, EL & EX amongst approximately 1,140 individuals. 1,000 Pet store posters developed and disseminated throughout the respective family islands, websites, email portals etc. PSA/Educational Programs developed and airing on national television station for top 5 invasive species found in The Bahamas. Approximately 10 LF culinary demonstration (NP, AN) executed through the project to date encouraging LF as a fishery resource, thus including free taste sampling to spectators. Reprinted safe capture, handling and cleaning brochures and disseminated to national and regional agencies and organizations.

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved?

The project was selected based on available resources from the executing agency and partner organizations (co-financing), and balance of funding available in the GEF-4 cycle for The Bahamas. An additional project was initially submitted focusing on invasive plants, however, considering the pool of funds were inadequate, the priority species (LF) was given higher preference All partner agencies were involved in the process (DMR, BEST, TNC, BREEF & BNT), with TNC taking the lead in preparing the PPG. International and local scientists were engaged to facilitate species data while assisting with the development of the project document and species CSA’s.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently?

Design the experiment based on the expertise level of persons available, or identifying a simpler training mechanism that can be administered to additional individuals to facilitate data collection. Identify/hire a national accountant to oversee budgeting and audits rather than exerted additional tasks on the NPC.

• Additional comments from project team: Challenges observed –

o Accessing project and capital funds (co-financing) in a timely fashion to execute project activities. BEST holds project funds for DMR in which delays associated with frequent travel obligation of signatories, or micro-management of project funds have been of hindrance to the progress of the project. Capital funds are directed to the Ministry of Finance for approval, which has been of great setback to the Department with respect to travel logistics for the Andros pilot site in


particular. The Department has set up, an independent bank account to received GEF project funds to facilitate the timely execution of project activities. This will be implemented in the second half of the project.

o Unforeseen training - the project was designed for the training of local fishers/interested parties and partner agencies to safely harvest and handle lionfish. However, due to the nature of the experiment, training efforts to effectively execute the demonstration project required focus on data collection methodologies including REEF. To obtain the required standard for scientific data collection, training consisted of 3-week long training sessions structured as a morning classroom course followed by afternoon field exercises. Additionally, a minimum of 30 and 50 REEF surveys were the prerequisites for obtaining Level 4 and 5, respectively. Therefore, monthly proficiency dives were structured to upkeep skill levels and facilitate obtaining the minimum requirements for the training course.

o Decrease in capacity for pilot execution: unfortunately, considering the small pool of persons in

The Bahamas within the partner agencies who have been trained, persons have been relocated to other entities outside of the environmental field. To overcome this obstacle, the executing agency has ensured that the field expeditions have continued by the Department's staff. This has been successful with respect to the experiment, however, this would call for delays in project management as the NPC and RA is also engaged in the execution of the experiment.

o Oversight in execution agencies responsibilities: DMR has been designated as the Executing

Agency considering the pilot demonstration’s focus is on lionfish intervention. However, other components of the project, namely component 1 (Update of the NISS), and component 3 (development of a CSA) are the responsibilities of the BEST Commission, Ministry of the Environment. The sub-contracting of solely the pilot demonstration to DMR would have been a more resolute approach, while BEST should have been the lead for other components of the project, sub-contracting experts to facilitate the Communications Strategy, NISS and the CSA were appropriate. Both agencies (DMR & BEST) have insufficient staffing to facilitate all aspects of the project.

A major lesson learned was based on the deficiency of a tracking system to measure the effectiveness of several management activities pertaining to lionfish control. It was very difficult to identify experimental sites around New Providence, due to a number of factors such as: i. increase fishing pressure; as the demand for lionfish fillets increase, fishers are now targeting this resource for restaurants and fish processors. ii. lionfish tournaments; several lionfish tournament have been executed to date by management authorities, in addition to local communities who are environmentally aware of the threats lionfish pose. A single tournament alone in New Providence has harvested 900 lionfish specimens. iii. increase in awareness: education and outreach initiatives focus on overfishing lionfish as a management goal, fishers are encouraged to target all lionfish encountered as they are capable.

• Additional comments from Reviewer: The Reviewer did not have the opportunity to visit The Bahamas and meet with this project team. Information provided by interviewees and documents provided by the National Coordinator suggest that this project has been going well overall. The project participants are well aware of current challenges and making strides to overcome them. The project leads are encouraged to package lessons learned and training modules for transfer to all other countries dealing with, or likely to be invaded by, lionfish.


Isla de Cabritos Pilot Project – Dominican Republic

DOC-NZ = Department of Conservation, New Zealand GBIF = Global Biodiversity Information Facility GLISPA = Global Island Partnership IAS = Invasive alien species IABIN = Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network USDA = United States Department of Agriculture

Strategic Planning Reviewer Comments 1.Desired final outcome:

• Protect the fragile island ecosystem and surrounding Ramsar wetlands from invasive cats, goats, and donkeys and promote island ecosystem restoration


• Baseline survey on IAS

• Baseline data on flora and fauna

• Monitoring data

• Agreement of eradication methodology among stakeholders

• Eradication of target species

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to explicitly include an information sharing component (regionally and globally) as a measure of project success.

3. Context (working where, when, and with whom):

• Isla de Cabritos in Lago Enriquillo

• National experts of the Subsecretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity

• National experts of the Museum of Natural History

• International experts (Island Conservation)

• Local non-governmental organisations

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to consult/share information with additional groups with expertise on vertebrate eradication (esp. in island contexts). Examples include: USDA Veterinary Services, DOC-NZ, and GLISPA.

• Based on information gained through interviews, the project team would likely have benefitted from a partnership with individuals/organizations who have substantial experience in working with local community decision making and conflict transformation process. The need may still exist.


• The influence could be more relevant for ecotourism, but it is also important to take into account the local activities (e.g., the visitations to the island and the fishery).

• The technical and socio-economic lessons learned from this vertebrate eradication program would be of value to other organizations and countries with similar IAS issues.

• The Reviewer encourages broader engagement, as well as data sharing so as to provide regional/global benefits

5. Barriers to success (actual and perceived):

• Donkeys are an important “tool” for transport and movement of different items of the rural production, and the people may perceive that eradication is inappropriate; so for this reason we made the agreement to give some of the donkeys to the community for them to domesticate and

•


use as working animals

6. Existing resources:

• In the island as well, as in the lake, there are important fauna for the global biodiversity conservation (iguanas, crocodile) and they must to be preserved as a heritage site.

• There are 14 native cacti species that it is necessary to conserve especially the genus Consolea, Melocactus and Mamilaria that are threat in other sites by the use in traditional medicine and as ornamental plants.

• The project team may find it useful to list the existing and needed resources in terms of technical equipment, information, personnel, funding etc. This will be important information for the final review and for future funding proposals.


• It is necessary build capacity to manage the area and raise funds for developing the administrative space into the island and to facilitate the accessibility (boats, docks, etc.)

• Also it is necessary build a fence in the area where a “land bridge” normally occurs in a large drought period. Currently with the rising water level in the lake it is not necessary but the Park Rangers must to be trained for the surveillance to prevent reinvasion and to build the fence if the bridge occurs.

• See note above


• Assess the perception of local stakeholders [Yr 1; completed

• Raise stakeholder awareness of IAS [Yr 1; completed

• Stakeholder consent on eradication [Yr 1; process completed, some consent was given]

• Population assessment of target species [Yr 1; completed

• Status of avifauna assessment [Yr 1; completed

• Status of island flora [Yr 2; completed]

• Status of invertebrate fauna [Yr 2; completed]

• Status of herpetofauna [Yr 1; completed]

• Eradication of target species [(Yr 2; November 2011 –January 2012]

• Assessment of eradication success [Yrs 2-3]

• Assessment of impact of eradication [Yrs 3-4]

• Management of pathways of IAS invasion [Yrs 2-4; Status?]

• Ecosystem/habitat restoration [Yrs 3-4]

• Permanent monitoring for re-invasion [Yrs 2-4; Status?]

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to work with university faculty/students to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the eradication activities.

• Status unclear

• Status unclear


• Promotion of project achievements [Yr 4]

• Improve island surveillance [Yr 4]

• Collate and disseminate lessons learned [Yr 4]


The process of selecting the methodology for implement the pilot activities was as result of many workshops and discussion meeting in order to choose the best strategy for eradication. The first option was the proposal coming from Island Conservation (California). They recommended the use of shooters highly specialized for hunting the donkeys from a helicopter. This methodology, even could be the most feasible from the cost/benefit point of view, it is not recommended by the own purpose define for the Environment Ministry by Law, and because of the previous stated use for donkeys by the communities near the pilot site. The Ministry authorities as well as the National Committee of Invasive Species, had considered it inadequate to implement such measures.

Besides the above remarked reason, the other one important take into account was the problem with the final disposed of the dead donkey’s body inside a natural protected area that has permanently visited by tourists.

In the other hand, using the proposed methodology for eradication give us the guaranty of integrate the local

community to the process and makes it more sustainable.


Nothing

• Additional comments from project team:

o This outcome will be achieved by the local community integration. o After the eradication of invasive species in the island we are planning to continue with a

monitoring programme and promoting the ecotourism activities. o The baseline survey give as a result that there are more than 100 donkeys and around 10 cows in

the island. Goats were not seen and there not trace of the presence of this animal on the island. o Cats were not seen but some traces were found (feces, foot prints). o No evidences of rats were found in previous and currents survey. o The eradication of donkeys was schedule to start in November after a process of discussion on the

National Committee of Invasive Species and at the pilot sites with local stakeholders. o The eradication target species are: cats, donkeys and cows. o In the isla Caritos it was necessary make different kind of work. In the subject of birds, reptiles,

and mammals it was made by experts from the Ministry of Environment (i. e. Viceministry of Protected Areas and Biodiversity). While in the subject of flora and invertebrates the studies were made by the National Botanical Garden.

o International experts from Island Conservation (California) have visited the Cabritos Island in October 2010, in order to do a feasibility study of eradication for donkeys and cats.

o In February 2011, the Ecological Group Conservación de Islas (Mexico) visited the island and made some recommendation for monitoring and to implement eradication activities.

o The only local non-governmental organization effectively incorporated to the Cabritos island activities is Grupo Jaragua and Asociación de Guias Ecoturisticos del Lago Enriquillo (AGELE).

o Two general meetings were held with stakeholders in Jaragua, Bahoruco and Pedernales and two workshop in Neyba, Bahoruco and Pedernales)

o For the target species it was necessary to make two survey and we conclude that en the case of donkeys the population is around 127 individuals. For cats, as I have stated previously, not individuals were captured or seen however evidences were found and the capture method consider the set of traps in the whole island. No evidences for rats were found.


o The presence avifauna in the island is not so different than these present in the main land. A previous evaluation had reported the presence of an invasive bird (Pleoceus cusculatus), but at the present it was not found. Although the distance from main land to the island is not so far and it permit that the avifauna be the same in both places.

o Regarding the flora of the island, we found, as I stated before, that it is very similar, excepting the case of the cacti that have represented by 14 species.

o Regarding the flora of the island, we found, as I stated before, that it is very similar, excepting the case of the cacti that have represented by 14 species.

o In the case of invertebrates, the inventory made has reported 13 Order, 49 Families and more than 69. The invective groups identified were in this order: Coleoptera, 31%; Diptera, 18% ; Hymenoptera, 14%; Lepidoptera, 11%; Hemiptera, 8%; Ortoptera, 5%; Aodonata , Blataria, and Neuroptera, 3% each; Collembola, Diotyoptera, Mantodea, and Thysanoptera, 1 % each. For the arachnids were found: Aranae, 62%; Solpugidae and Scorpionidae, 13% each, and Pseudoscorpionidae, 12%.

o For the Herpetofauna, the inventory report stated the existence of 11 species of the families: Crocoliydae; Gekkonidae; Iguanidae and Teiidae.

o The target species eradication will be start on November 2011, and will be finalized on January 2012.

o The assessment of eradication success will be made by monitoring and tracking. It will be made by Grupo Jaragua.

o As I have written above, we are planning a train the Park Rangers for avoid the introduction of invasive species as well as build a fence in the area where the “bridge” occurs.

o The ecosystem restoration is a need and also a main objective of the project, but the plan of restoration have not yet devise and it will be devise according to need of restoration coming from the permanent monitoring to be implement after the eradication.

o The project achievements, surveillance and disseminate the lessons learned will start at the end of the project, as a result of the pilot activities.

• Additional comments from Reviewer:

o The Reviewer encourages the project team to work with university faculty/students to conduct and publish a cost-benefit analysis of the eradication activities.

o The Reviewer also encourages the project team to share all relevant data collected through relevant information networks, such as IABIN and GBIF.

o Permanent monitoring activities necessitate long-term funding. A financial sustainability plan should be developed at least a year before project closure.


Alto Velo Island Pilot Project - Dominican Republic

DOC-NZ = Department of Conservation, New Zealand GBIF = Global Biodiversity Information Facility GLISPA = Global Island Partnership IAS = Invasive alien species IABIN = Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network USDA = US Department of Agriculture


• Protection of native fauna specially the endemic anolis (Anolis altavelensis) and the birds (Sternidae y Sulidae spp.), and native flora of predators and herbivorous and exotic plants present at the island. Protection of fragile ecosystems of the island, especially coral surrounding the island.

• It is not clear how this broad outcome is going to be achieved given the listed activities.

• Surveys themselves do not convey protection.


• Baseline data collected

• Monitoring data

• Presumably eradication of target species, preventing them from re-establishing, and increased biodiversity protection are the ultimate measures of project success.

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to explicitly include an information sharing component (regionally and globally) as a measure of project success.


• Alto Velo Island

• National experts of Subsecretariat of Protected Areas and Biodiversity

• National experts of Museum of Natural History

• International experts

• Local non-governmental organisations

•

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to consult/share information with additional groups with expertise on vertebrate eradication (esp. in island contexts). Examples include: USDA Veterinary Services, DOC-NZ, Island Conservation, and GLISPA.


• All the stakeholders are agree that the outcome from the pilot project can influenced the fisheries to be more diligent when they arrives to the island for rest after the fishery activities

• Even Alto Velo is an offshore island, the eradication activities could awareness the local environmental authorities about the importance of surveillance of the protected site.

• The Reviewer encourages broader engagement, as well as data sharing so as to provide regional/global benefits.

5. Barriers to success (actual and perceived):

• The barriers to success that can be identified are the remote place that the island is, referring to the main land and the

•


hard accessibility.


• At the present the most valuable resources is the technical staff

• The project team may find it useful to list the existing and needed resources in terms of technical equipment, information, personnel, funding etc. This will be important information for the final review and for future funding proposals.


• Funding is needed to buy an adequate ship for access to the island even in bad weather.

• It is not clear if there is adequate funding/availability in the GEF grant or must this $ be raised.


• Determine the perception of local people about Alto Velo [Yr 1; Completed

• Improve awareness of stakeholders of importance of IAS project [Yr 1; One meeting and one workshop held]

• Determine the size and distribution of cat and rat population and their impact to choose eradication strategy [Yr 1; Decision made not to do population estimates, but to bait entire island]

• Determine the extent and distribution of Neem tree [Yr 1; Completed]

• Determine the status of avifauna [Yr 1; Status?]

• Determine the status of island flora [Yr 2; Status?]

• Determine the status of invertebrate fauna on the island to study its interaction with island flora [Yr 2; Completed]

• Determine the status of the herpetofauna and verify the presence of sea turtles [Yr 2; Status?]

• Eradication of cats and rats [Yr 2; Status?]

• Eradication of Neem tree [Yr 3]

• Assessment of eradication success [Yr 3]

• Assessment of impact of cat, rat, and need eradication [Yr 3]

• Ecosystem/habitat restoration [Yrs 3-4]

• Permanent monitoring of cats and rats [?]

• Prevention of reestablishment of Neem tree [Yrs 3-4]

• Promotion of the project achievements [Yr 4]

• Improvement of island surveillance [Yr 4]

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to work with university faculty/students to conduct and publish a cost-benefit analysis of the eradication activities.

• Status unclear

• Status unclear

• Status unclear

• In December 2011 – April 2012

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? The selection process involved the total members of the National Invasive Species Committee by discussion of different options for the eradication and kind of bait to be used, including the way to spread the same. Finally the Committee decide to use bait stations for the rats eradications, distributed in a squared grid of 50 X 50 meters covering the entire island, the material for set the baits will be a bamboo “T” in order to avoid the possibility of


poison consumption by birds or other non-target species.For the cats the decision was made following the same process. And the committee approved the use of the local traps as stated in the methodology sent to CABI.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? Nothing


o Similar to Cabritos, to achieve this outcome we have made synergistic with local stakeholders and involved the Ministry of Environment local authorities and fisheries by teaching they the importance of this island for the conservation of the birds that every year nesting in the area.

o We are noted to the fisheries and local stakeholders the high value of the endemic species Anolis

altavelensis, since it is presents only in this place. o The baseline survey give as a result that there are around 10 goats, which were seen and

photographed by the technical staff. o Cats were seen and many traces also were found (feces, foot prints and chicks eaten by cats) in the

nesting areas. Not cat’s population was estimated. o Rats were found in previous and currents survey, but not population levels were estimated. o 17 birds species were found, which the must higher number was Hirundo rustica and Sterna

fuscata. o In the case of reptiles; there are presents five species (Anolis altavelensis, Hemidactylus angulatus,

Leiocephalus altavelensis, Sphaerodactylus difficilis, Sphaerodactylus altavelensis), standing out Anolis altavelensis and Sphaerodactylus altavelensie, with the highest population.

o Regarding the flora composition we found five zones: rocky coast, sandy coast, dry pastureland, herbaceous hillside, and broadleaf forest. It is include 104 native species collected and four invasive species (Azadiractha indica: neem; Panicum maximu; Boitrochloa pertusa; and, Calotropis procera)

o The monitoring data, both for eradication and ecosystems restoration will be submitted after the process of eradication, according with the propose methodology will be concluded. The collected data from Alto Velo were based on previous studies made by the National Museum of Natural History, Grupo Jaragua and current survey carry out by Viceministry of Protected Areas and the National Botanical Garden. Also experts from Island Coservation (California) visited the island on December 2010.

o Local perception was estimate by applying a questionnaire to the inhabitants of the communities nearest to the pilot site, and those which livelihood activities could be affected by the project implementation (e. g. Oviedo, Pedernales, Juancho-La Colonia, Juancho-Beata). The local people did expressed that they don’t know how invasive species are and few of them have ever see lionfish and all don’t know that alien plants as neem and others as well as alien animals are invasive.

o The awareness on invasive species and biodiversity was improved by holding one meeting and one workshop with the stakeholders in Pedernales.

o The size and distribution of cat and rat population was not determine because in the National Invasive Species Committee was decided that the most important is to keep the order of magnitude (tens, hundreds, etc.); since it is necessary to ensure that all individuals will be exposed to poison. For this reason, the poisoned baits will be spread in the whole island. And the same will be done for the cats.

o In the case of neem, few individuals were found. And a vast area cover by Calotropis procera, that will be eradicate.

o Invertebrates studies were made and samples collected for identification. The significant groups present were Lepidoptera and Coleoptera.

o The methodology for eradication neem, cats, rats and goats had submitted and the process will start next December and it is supposed to be continued until April, because this the unique window for do the eradication, since after April the nesting period for bird extends from April to August, and also from June 1, to November 30 is the period of hurricanes occurrences and the navigation by the Alto Velo Channel should not be done in small boats.


o The Monitoring programme must to be implementing according to the proposal coming from independents organization; similar to the Cabritos case.

o The monitoring programme will give us the level of success for the eradication and the restoration level for the ecosystem. And in this way decide if it is necessary to implement any measures for restoration, which will be devising as an alternative way if it is necessary.

o Increasing the awareness on Alien Invasive Species will be enough to avoid the reinvasion of neem, because the plants of neem currently presents on the island probably was planted by the fisheries.

o The monitoring programme will be implemented take in to account the birds population increase and promote it in different ways (e. g. TV, newspaper, radio, etc.).

o For improve the surveillance the Ministry need to purchase an adequate ship, due to the remoteness of the island.


o A thorough review of this project is premature. The eradication program is not yet underway. o The Reviewer encourages the project team to work with university faculty/students to conduct and

publish a cost-benefit analysis of the eradication activities. o The Reviewer also encourages the project team to share all relevant data collected through

relevant information networks, such as IABIN and GBIF. o Permanent monitoring activities necessitate long-term funding. A financial sustainability plan

should be developed at least a year before project closure.


Black River Lower Morass Project - Jamaica

IAS = Invasive alien species


• To determine the impact of A. allughas on the native biodiversity of the Black River Lower Morass

• To determine which method of treatment is most appropriate for management of the M.

quinquenervia in the Black River Lower Morass.

• To ascertain the impact of the A. allughas on swamp forest regeneration in the Black River Lower Morass.

• To determine which mechanical control treatment is the most suitable for management of the invasive ginger A.

allughas in the Back River Lower Morass.

• The outcomes listed indicate that this project is largely focused on methodological analysis for the GEF-project term.

• Given the logistical challenges associated with the site context and delays in equipment procurement, the Review does not anticipate that the project will achieve substantial, measurable impacts in target species control by the time the GEF project closes.

• The work this project is undertaking is important and the leadership is dedicated and competent. However, per comments made elsewhere in the Evaluation, it’s not ideally suited as a pilot project under such a small, short term GEF grant.


• A report on the impact of A. allughas on native biodiversity of the Black River Lower Morass

• Maps of the state of the ecosystem and location of IAS in the Black River Lower Morass

• Maps showing the effects of intervention activities in the Black River Lower Morass

• Successful control of M. quinquenervia in the Black River Lower Morass

• Establishment of a native species nursery

• A report on germination experiments

• A report on the impact of A allughas on swamp forest regeneration

• Seedlings transplanted to encourage ecosystem rehabilitation

• Successful mechanical control of A.

allughas in the Black River Lower Morass

• Identification of successful method for forest rehabilitation after mechanical control of A. allughas.

• An Adaptive Management Plan for the Black River Lower Morass.

• Reports on public awareness

• Increased media coverage

• It would be useful to clearly define “successful” in spatio-temporal terms in the context of these measures.


• Black River Lower Morass (Ramsar Site)

• University of the West Indies, Mona- Department of Life Sciences

• National Environment and Planning


Agency

• Fisheries Division

• The Nature Conservancy

• Local non-governmental organizations

• Local community based organizations

• Social Development Commission


• The A. allughas has been found to be spreading in other parishes of the Island (St. Catherine, Portland, St. Mary and Trelawny). The identification of a successful control methodology in Black River could be replicated in these other affected areas.

• The information generated would help in plugging the gaps on the proper documentation of biodiversity found within the Black River Lower Morass Ramsar site.

• Given the GEF’s focus on environmental concerns, it would be useful to communicate the influence in terms of environmental priorities as well – the overall GEF project has an intent of protecting biodiversity of global significance.

5. Barrier to success (actual and perceived): o The implementation of the pilot was

delayed for 1 year due to ambiguity between GEF/UNEP and country during the Project Development and Grant preparation stages of the project regarding purchasing of equipment. Another contributing factor was the proposed methodology for the pilot activities.

o Delay in receiving ATV needed to gain access to some experimental plots and to begin mechanical experiments.

o Prolonged staffing of Pilot project. At current graduate students are being used to assist in conducting research however many of them opt to leave to take up other employment opportunities.

o During the wet season work has to be haulted on Pilot as the area is often times totally inundated with water. This leaves very precise windows of opportunity to get work done within the pilot site.


• Hyper spectral camera

• Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

• Terrestrial laser scanner

• Amphibious All terrain vehicle (ATV) (purchased but not yet delivered)

• Cutter and plow

• 4 HP Yamaha outboard motor

• 2 Ashtech Promark GPS Units

• Airborne LiDAR Unit

• Campaign Material- IAS Factsheet


• Labor


• Plant nursery (location identified but not yet built)

• Campaign materials (PSAs to be produced)


• Ecological evaluation: Study plots have been established; 12,328 trees have been tagged, measured and identified. A total of 24 species, 9 of which were identified to the level of genus from 14 different families. Unable to identify 9 species, will be exploring use of DNA barcoding. 5,953 seedling of ~10 species have been sampled with Grias cauliflora dominating the seedling count. Data to be compiled and analysed.

• IAS mapping: Hemispheric photographs were collected but have not yet been analyzed.

• Removal of target species: All plots have been established and the cutter and plow procured, awaiting the arrival of the ATV to begin activities.

• Establishment of native species nursery: The location for the nursery has been identified and permission received from land owner to build on site. Items for construction are being procured.

• Replanting: Activity not yet commenced.

• Public awareness assessment: Knowledge attitudes and practices IAS survey completed in the Black River Area and report compiled.

• Public awareness campaign: Activities have begun in the pilot site area. The major activities for the period included:

− World Wetlands Day Expo on 02 February 2010. Targeted schools, community groups and local stakeholders

− Hosted an Expo in the Black River Area at the Black River Safari in commemoration of International Day on Biological Diversity on 19 May 2011. The aim of the expo was to highlight biodiversity within wetland ecosystems (The Black River Lower Morass) and highlight the impact the IAS had on these ecosystems. An outside broadcast on radio was also held.

− Newspaper articles for Earth Day (April 2011) and International Biodiversity Day (May 2011).

− Attended 4 Summer Camps put on by the SDC for children age 7- 18 yrs. in the

•


Junction St. Elizabeth Area (11 July Postdam, 18 July in Queensbury, 27 July Brinkley and Red Bank). Participants were exposed to information on Biodiversity and the threat/impact of IAS on Biodiversity in the Black River Area. Activities included presentations, crossword puzzles, word search, mazes and colouring for small children.

• Attitude change assessment [Yr 4]

• Adaptive management plan [Yr 4]

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? The pilot project was selected via a national consultation and evaluation process where several potential pilots were identified and based on established criteria an evaluation and selection process was had. The criteria established included: � Presence / absence of IAS at the site � Existing or potential threat to local, regional or global biodiversity � Access to site � No effects or minimal effects (if any) on local community(s); can adequate measures be taken to mitigate any

potential adverse effects? � Safety and security � Any other local considerations?

- additional criteria, if necessary – for instance chances of success, local stakeholder interest, existing projects that the activity can complement or link into), rate each of the activities against each of the selected criteria (5 = excellent; 4=good; 3=average; 2=not good 1=poor)

Those involved in the processed are listed in table below:

Ainsley Henry IWCZM Branch - NEPA [email protected]

Donna Blake Ministry of Local Government and Environment [email protected]

Marsha Mason NEPA – Protected Areas Branch [email protected]

Andrea Donaldson NEPA - Biodiversity Branch [email protected]

Elaine Fisher CITES Scientific Authority [email protected]

Natalie Fearon NEPA – Public Education Branch [email protected]

Aisha Bailey Institute of Jamaica (IoJ) – NHD [email protected]

Fitzroy White MAL – Plant Quarantine Unit [email protected]

Orlando Robinson NPF – Hope Zoo [email protected]

Bertrand Smith Maritime Authority of Jamaica [email protected]

Francine Webb RADA [email protected]

Sean Townsend IoJ – NHD [email protected]

Byron Wilson Department of Life Sciences,UWI [email protected]

Hugh Helps Port Authority [email protected]

Shauna Chai (representing Ms.Susan Otuokon) JCDT

[email protected] Carla Bucknor Douglas Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) [email protected]

Janet Lawrence (rep. Harris) CARDI [email protected]

Sheries Simpson NEPA – Projects Branch [email protected]

Christine Sutherland NEPA – Protected Areas Branch [email protected]

Lawrence Nelson Forestry Department [email protected]

Tashika Blackwood NEPA – Projects Branch [email protected]

Dayne Buddo Urban Development Corporation

Linval Getten NCRPS/NMP

Terrance Caller STEPA


[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Derrick Gayle EFJ [email protected]

Lisa Myers MAL – R&D [email protected] or [email protected]

Vyju Lopez CABI – Caribbean and Latin America

[email protected] Dian Holgate NEPT

[email protected] [email protected]

Marcia Tomlinson JSPCA

[email protected]

Yvette Strong NEPA – Biodiversity Branch

[email protected]

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? It would have been much smoother for implementation if declarations were made during the Project Inception meeting in Jamaica in October 2009 as to issues with funding equipment. This would have saved the pilot stakeholders months of time spent after trying to redo methodologies and try to find alternative sources of funding to purchase equipment

• Additional comments from project team: No comments made


o Per previous remarks, the Reviewer doesn’t feel that this was an ideal choice of a pilot project given the overall time and budget limitations of the GEF grant. Nevertheless, it is important work and the projected leadership is dedicated and competent.

o The Review encourages the project team to explore integrating biocontrol into the project as part of an

integrated pest management (IPM) approach. There seems to be a philosophical bias against the use of biocontrol in Jamaica, and this may undermine the potential for conservation success.

o The project team indicated that they do not current consider water hyacinth a problem in the system

despite the fact that it is already choking access channels. The Reviewer believes that water hyacinth will become a substantial issues in the system and encourages an assessment of eradication potential through an IPM approach. Biocontrol agents for water hyacinth have been identified and successfully employed in other parts of the world.

o The Review highly recommends that project leadership visit the Everglades projects in southern

Florida in order to get a first-hand understanding of how an IPM approach is being used in another large, highly complex water system with substantial accessibility challenges.

o As described, the project does not have an explicit understanding of the pathways for spread of the

target species. This information would be extremely useful in order to further prevent spread/establishment in other areas of the country and from Jamaica to other countries.

o Climate change (sea level rise) is likely to have a direct impact on this ecosystem. How will this

impact the target species? Perhaps this is a good question for a graduate student with an interest in ecological modeling.

o The Reviewer encourages the project team to network with Wetlands International and the Ramsar

Convention in order to identify potential collaborators and funding, and to share lessons learned.


Lionfish Pilot Project - Jamaica IAS = Invasive alien species MIAS = Marine invasive alien species RIAS = Regulatory impact assessment RREAP = Rapid response/emergency activity development


• Jamaicans actively involved in consumption of Lionfish for preservation of marine biodiversity

• Relevant stakeholders trained in safe handling and preparation of Lionfish

• Trapping mechanism developed

• Control of Lionfish population in Jamaica’s waters

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to carefully follow the issue with Ciguatara and lionfish as this could have profound consequences on lionfish consumption.

• Achieving control in a marine system may be difficult due to the potential of lionfish to keep entering the system from other areas. Effective collaboration with other islands in the lionfish “zone” needs to be an explicit project outcome.


• Annual reports

• A National Lionfish Database that is functional and adequately populated with an accompanying user manual.

• Stakeholders trained in collection and inputting of data into the national database.

• A report of island-wide distribution of the Lionfish with distribution maps

• A report of finding of the Prey Preference activities and associated impacts on Jamaica’s Fisheries

• Trap(s) that are selective and effective in catching Lionfish that are manufactured from cheap indigenous materials.

• A written training programme for best handling practices of the Lionfish from sea to plate, that can be duplicated for use with varying types of stakeholders.

• Training video(s) in support of training programme

• A report of the training programme offered and impact on efforts to manage Lionfish populations

• A Lionfish Management Plan for Jamaica

• Publications in recognized journals

• The project needs biological and socio-economic measures of success. How will you know that “control” is or is not being achieved? This information is vital to adaptive management.


• Waters off the coast of Jamaica

• National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)

• University of West Indies (UWI) – Mona Center for Marine Science – Discovery Bay Marine Lab

• Fisheries Division

• Food for the Poor, Jamaica

• Portland Environment Protection Association (PEPA)

• This project has done a good job in engaging a diversity of stakeholders.


• Brown’s Town Community College

• Rainforest Seafoods

• Volunteers

• Marine Police and JDF Coast Guard

• Fisher-Folks

• Community groups

• Pet industry

• Customs Department

• Media

• Ministry of Health

• Ministry of Tourism

• Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade

• University Sub-Aqua Club

• Jamaica Sub-Aqua Club


• Successful control methods would lead to conservation of Jamaica’s marine biodiversity.

• Socioeconomic benefit from safeguarding livelihood of pot-fishers in Jamaica as well as all the other spinoff employment opportunities such as fish cleaners.

• It would be useful to see the influence from a regional/international perspective as well.

5. Barrier to success (actual and perceived):

• Lack of consistent labour at NGOs which the pilot partners with to carry out some of survey activities.

• Timely procurement of materials and equipment

• Lack of legislative allowances to carryout Lionfish removal in fish sanctuaries.

•


• Principal Researcher- Dr. Dayne Buddo

• Research Assistant- Ms. Denise Chin

• Dive equipment/ SCUBA gear and accessories

• Dive certification

• Underwater photography/videography equipment

• Kayak with pumps and paddles

• Training materials

• Lionfish display equipment

• Boat equipment

• Handling/preservation training

• Computing equipment

•


• Consultant (pet trade regulations)

• NGO Labour to support pilot activities (lack of consistency in staff)

• Legislation to support removal of Lionfish from fish sanctuaries

•



Note that by project inception in 2009 pilot changed from early detection to control and management

• Monthly Surveys at selected sites: 6 pilot sites have been established around the island Port Royal, Discovery Bay, Port Antonio, Buff Bay, Manchioneal and Montego Bay. During the period 173 (60 m2 each) in water surveys were conducted at selected sites around the island including Discovery Bay, Bluefields, Montego Bay, Port Royal and Pedro Cays.

• Collection of biological parameters of specimens: During these surveys Lionfish specimens were collected and the biological parameters recorded. Parameters collected include: length, weight, gut contents, aggregation and behaviour. Location and depth are also recorded.

• Creation of database to track the population and creation and update of distribution map using GIS: A national lionfish database has been created to house the biological, ecological and distribution data gathered around the Island. The database will feature GIS maps showing Lionfish distribution and densities around the island. To date the database contains 463 datasets.

• Analysis of gut contents of specimens collected from the field for species composition and quantities consumed: To date 111 different preys have been identified in the stomach contents of the Lionfish. This includes species such as: Shrimps, crabs, parrotfishes, snappers, trumpetfishes, wrasses and damselfishes. Most of the species identified to date are economically important species within the fishing industry

• Verification of anecdotal lionfish trapping information through interviews with fishermen at sites around the Island: In-water pursuit of and removal of Lionfish is not a feasible, cost effective or sustainable method of control. The development of a low cost passive trapping mechanism which is highly effective and selective would prove a better method of catching Lionfish. Anecdotal information provided by some Jamaican potfishers suggests that Lionfish has been found in local fish traps/pots. The project is currently

•


verifying this anecdotal information. To date 100 pot retrievals and deployments have been done in tandem with fisherfolk in the Alloha Fishing Village in Discovery Bay St. Ann with the aim of identifying best bait type, soak time and pot design. Also being determined is the catch per unit effort. To date 21 dives have been assessed and uploaded from 5 locations

• Adaptive management plan (Yr 4): Socio-economic surveys have been conducted with a graduate student from UWI, St. Augustine. The target areas for the survey were: St. Ann, Trelawny, Montego Bay, Negril and St. Mary. Two hundred and forty five (245) surveys have been completed another 155 are still outstanding. The project is currently awaiting the results of the analysis

• Training: A train-the-trainer programme for the safe handling of Lionfish from sea to plate was developed for the project by the UWI Mona’s Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory. The training targets representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, NEPA, Marine Park Officers, Dive Operators, Outreach Officers (various agencies) as well as strong environmental NGO groups. The training is facilitated in partnership with Nahkle Hado from Food for the Poor. The hands on training exposed learners to the following:

− Characteristics of Marine IAS with Case Studies

− Description of Lionfish

− Using a Sling, Speargun, pole spear

− Hands-on Training in Active Capture in-water

− Measuring, dissection of gut contents, data entry

− Preparation and handling for cooking

− Cooking

− Tasting This covers information on biology and behavior of the invasive lionfish; the history, and predicted future of the invasion; potential impacts on the environment, fisheries and tourism; venemology, reactions and how to treat stings and methods of control and management. To date the training programmeme has been administered directly to over 20 persons from Government and Environmental NGO groups. These trainers have since gone on to train over 30 individuals.


The Lionfish outreach programmeme also targets fisherfolk (Aloha, Manchioneal, Buff Bay, Port Antonio, Prospect, Pedro Cays Fishing Villages), hotel staff (kitchen, nurses and water sport) from Super Clubs, Runaway Bay HEART Hotel, Half Moon Hotel, Sandals and Tourism stakeholders. Persons visiting the Marine IAS Lab are also educated on the Lionfish. Records have shown that since February 2011, 2,962 persons have been trained. A preliminary video has also been developed and is used to enhance training.




Those involved in the processed are listed in table below:







Aisha Bailey Institute of Jamaica (IoJ) – NHD [email protected]

Fitzroy White MAL – Plant Quarantine Unit [email protected]

Orlando Robinson NPF – Hope Zoo [email protected]






Shauna Chai (representing Ms.Susan Otuokon) JCDT [email protected]

Carla Bucknor Douglas Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) [email protected]







Dayne Buddo Urban Development Corporation [email protected]

Linval Getten NCRPS/NMP [email protected]

Terrance Caller STEPA [email protected]

Derrick Gayle EFJ [email protected]


Vyju Lopez CABI – Caribbean and Latin America [email protected]

Dian Holgate NEPT [email protected] [email protected]

Marcia Tomlinson JSPCA [email protected]

Yvette Strong NEPA – Biodiversity Branch [email protected]

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? A granting mechanism should have been written into the project to allow for ease of payment for work to be done by partners.

• Additional comments from project team: None made.


o This project has done a good job in engage a diversity of stakeholders. o The Reviewer encourages the project team to view the project not just from the perspective of Jamaica,

but to see itself as part of a much larger effort to address the lionfish. Numerous additional partnership and other resource opportunities are likely to emerge when the issue is looked at from a broader perspective.

o It may be impossible to actually establish lionfish control in Jamaica. However, this project offers numerous ‘secondary gains’ that help the country achieve progress on the IAS issue – e.g., public awareness raising, stakeholder engagement, etc. The Reviewer encourages the project team to explicitly assessment the ‘secondary gains’ and consider how to sustain them once the GEF project closes.


Portland Bight Pilot Project - Jamaica IAS = Invasive alien species


• Reduction in density of IAS predators in areas of high conservation value

• Enhanced survival of iguanas and increase in size of wild population.

• Enhanced efficacy of removal trapping of mongoose and cats and improved early response for trapping and removal of dogs and wild pigs

• Generate habitat maps for Hellshire Hills and Goat Islands

• Eradication of IAS on Goat Islands initiated.

• It would be useful to have some measurable target outcomes for terms like “reduction,” “improved,” “enhanced” and “increased.”

• For long-term sustainability, the project is likely going to need to implement measures that will reduce the likelihood of predators reaching the iguana location in the Hellshire Hills – Barriers? Population control of dogs and cats in the nearest human communities?

• Given the political issues with the Goat Islands, the project team needs to consider whether/not this outcome is realistically achievable within the next two years of the project.


• Pre-eradication baseline survey report including GIS maps identifying the location of species of conservation importance and target IAS.

• A report on the eradication of target IAS from Goat Islands contingent on requisite GoJ approval and assistance.

• A report on the regeneration of biodiversity and vegetation structure post eradication on Goat Islands contingent on requisite GoJ approval and assistance.

• Establishment of a viable population of the Iguana on Goat Islands contingent on requisite GoJ approval and assistance.

• Documented reduction in density of target IAS in core iguana areas in Hellshire Hills due to trapping and exclusion of target IAS.

• A report on the annual pitfall trapping surveys conducted.

• Increased survival of iguanas and increase in size of wild population in Hellshire Hills

• Documented occurrences of any new nesting areas in Hellshire Hills

• Reports on occurrences of IAS on fringe of the Iguana conservation zone and documentation of IAS removal.

•

• See note above


• Hellshire Hills and Goat Islands

• University of West Indies-Department of Life Sciences

• Jamaica Iguana Recovery Group (JIRG)


• National Environment and Planning Agency (NEPA)

• Urban Development Corporation (UDC)


• This pilot contributes significantly to safeguarding a critically endangered endemic species.

• Blue-tailed galliwasp (Celestus duquesneyi), the Jamaican boa (Epicrates sublflavus), and the Jamaican Coney (Geocapromys brownii).

• If successful, the conversion of the Goat Islands into a biodiversity reserve will help in the conservation of not only the target species but other endangered species as well.

5. Barrier to success (actual and perceived): o The Goat Islands component of the project is

contingent on the relinquishing of the islands to be used as a conservation habitat rather than being sold or used for development.

o Lengthy procurement process due to the need to adhere to Government of Jamaica Procurement Guidelines.

• See note in first box.

6. Existing resources: o Principal Investigator- Dr. Byron Wilson-UWI,

Mona Department of Life Sciences o Field Assistants o Casual Labour o 212 new live traps (cats, dogs, and mongoose)


• Additional traps

• Storage boxes

• Solar panels

• The Reviewer suggests contacting solar companies in the US to see if they’d be willing to donate panels as part of a “green PR” initiative that might be linked to project fundraising by the company. The Reviewer has contacts with solar companies and is willing to assist with networking.


• IAS predator removal from Hellshire Hills via

trapping [Y1-Y4]: ~60 live box traps were operational every day. Traps are re-baited and checked every 1-3 days. Traps are located along the core nesting Iguana areas and focused on mongoose removal. To date l07 mongoose, 2 feral cats and 2 wild pigs have been removed from the core nesting area.

• Expansion of existing trapping grid by an

additional 100 new mongoose/cats traps and

deployment of 12 dog/pig traps in core Iguana

area: A new field assistant has been trained and will be responsible for the new trapping loop being introduced. The procurement of the 212 new traps will facilitate this new trapping loop as well as augment the existing ones.


• Locate new iguana nesting sites and collect new

genetic material if possible: No new nests were found during the period. There is however a new plan for 2012. Anecdotal information indicates that there are at least two areas on the ‘outskirts’ of the core iguana area that currently harbour small numbers of adult iguanas. In conjunction with the expansion of the mongoose trapping grid, it is hoped to trap (or capture) females from these areas and outfit them with VHF transmitters prior to the nesting season. The explicit goal will be to determine where these animals deposit their eggs, and attempt to harvest either the eggs or hatchlings of these presumably ‘new’ wild animals

• Daily monitoring of known iguana nesting areas

to assess nesting composition and position:

Primary nesting areas were observed daily from hides constructed adjacent to the known and monitored nesting areas, and the positions and identities of nesting females and deposited nests were recorded. Thirty three (33) female iguanas were observed to have deposited clutches in the main communal nesting areas in 2011 up from 28 in 2010. Given that only eight females nested in 1991, the first year of nest site monitoring, the 2011 results indicate that the remnant breeding population has quadrupled in the past 20 years – presumably due to the recovery efforts. Also noteworthy is the observation that roughly half of this breeding population consists of repatriated, headstarted individuals – clearly demonstrating the efficacy of this technique. Crowding of the communal nesting area has occurred as evidenced by the destruction of one female iguana’s eggs by another to lay her own. Plans are in place to construct artificial nesting areas to accommodate the overflow.

• Erect nesting site enclosures to protect and

collect hatchling iguanas: Each nesting season around the 3rd week of August enclosures are erected to protect and collect hatchlings. Representative hatchlings from 26-27 clutches were sampled in 2011.

• Daily monitoring of nesting areas, processing

hatchlings and transfer some to Hope Zoo for

headstart programme: Nest site enclosures were checked a minimum of 2-3 times daily throughout the hatching season (late August up to the first days of October). All hatchlings found within enclosures were collected and processed (weighed, measured, PIT tagged, blood sampled). For 2011 a total of 205 hatchlings were collected and processed. 43 hatchlings were transported to the Hope Zoo for headstarting; the remainder were released at their site of capture


• Annual pitfall trap survey: Sixty four (64) assessment traps were opened on 8 February 2011 and checked daily until being closed on 16 March of each year. On capture, targeted species (e.g., most ground lizards) were measured (SVL), weighed, assigned a unique toe-clip combination, and released. Other reptiles and arthropods were enumerated and released. In addition to targeted native species, we also recorded the presence of IAS, especially cane toads, rats, and mice. These data will be used to assess changes in the populations of these non-native species, particularly in relation to on-going predator control activities. In all, several thousand records were generated and have now been entered into the master EXCEL file. Analyses of these data are underway, in conjunction with the Climate Change Group (Physics Department, UWI), and will provide novel information on potential changes in faunal abundance in light of the impacts of global climate change

• Eradications on the Goat Islands: In support of the baseline and pre-eradication surveys for the Goat Islands, a 4 day walking survey was conducted on the Great Goat Islands and 9 camera traps were deployed over a 43 day period. The camera traps captured over 1500 images which included 1,406 of goats, 11 og mongooses, 10 of cats, 2 of cane toads, 4 of Anolis lizards and 21 of birds. No sign of non-target native species such as the iguana or hutias was noted during the survey or captured by the camera traps. The images obtained provided support for the conclusions that the IAS species of concern are limited to cats, mongooses, and goats. Rodents have been discounted for possible eradication due to their high probability of re-introduction.

• Repartriation of headstarted iguanas back to

Hellshire Hills: In March 2011 a team consisting of the Fort Worth Zoo (vet Dr. Nancy Lung; vet tech Jackie Woods), the Audubon Nature Institute (New Orleans; Melanie Litton and Melissa Tomingas), and the Zoological Society of San Diego (Tandora Grant) conducted health screening on the captive Hope Zoo C. collei population. In addition to veterinary samples, the team also collected DNA (blood) samples for any individual that had not been previously sampled. Ultimately, 17 individuals were selected for repatriation back into Hellshire. Repatriation candidates were then transported to the Hellshire Hills and released into the core iguana conservation zone. Encouragingly, the Hope Zoo population continues to enjoy good health, and the 17 repatriation candidates were successfully released back into Hellshire. All of


the females (9) and four (4) of the males were released at the Lower Nesting Site. Two of the remaining males were released behind the beach at Manatee Bay, and the remaining two males were released on the trail to South Camp, in the vicinity of the ‘C2’ pitfall traps. The total number of headstarters repatriated back into Hellshire now stands at 155.

• Hellshire Hills forest structure and regeneration: During the period October 2010 to November 2011, 36 permanent sample plots were established in the Tropical Dry Forest of the Hellshire Hills. These plots are 25m X 25m in dimension and were laid out in accordance with the structure of a standard randomized block design. Seedling censuses were conducted on the above plots, and more than 3,600 tree seedlings representing approximately 56 species were recorded. A tree census is presently under way and is expected to be completed by January 2012.

• Estimation of population size of Iguanas at

Hellshire Hills: Field crew members were in the field in Hellshire during most days and every week of the project. Particularly during the nesting season assessments, efforts were made to trap iguanas (in addition to the live predator traps in continuous operation).In all, 69 iguana captures were recorded during the period, representing 35 different individuals.




Those involved in the process are listed in table below:







Aisha Bailey Fitzroy White Orlando Robinson


Institute of Jamaica (IoJ) – NHD [email protected]

MAL – Plant Quarantine Unit [email protected]

NPF – Hope Zoo [email protected]






Shauna Chai (representing Ms.Susan Otuokon) JCDT [email protected]

Carla Bucknor Douglas Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) [email protected]






Dayne Buddo Urban Development Corporation [email protected]

Linval Getten NCRPS/NMP [email protected]

Terrance Caller STEPA [email protected]

Derrick Gayle EFJ [email protected]


Vyju Lopez CABI – Caribbean and Latin America [email protected]

Dian Holgate NEPT [email protected] [email protected]

Marcia Tomlinson JSPCA [email protected]

Yvette Strong NEPA – Biodiversity Branch [email protected]


o The granting mechanism should have been written into the project to allow ease of payment for work to be done by partners.

o The Goat Islands eradication component would not have been written into the project without having

clear permission from the managing entity and the Government of Jamaica that permission would be given to convert the islands into conservation reserves.


o Highly disappointed that more has not been achieved on the eradications aspect of the Pilot due to inability to get the Goat Islands declared as a Conservation Reserve.

o Too many entities involved in administration/oversight of the Project which sometimes lead to lengthy

delays in communication and reimbursements.


o The project team seems well aware of the political issues with the Goat Islands. If this is going to continue as a project component, the Reviewer highly recommends establishing a team of individuals with considerable international policy experience at the conservation and business interface to assess the situation, develop proposals for the Ministry to consider, and assist with negotiation/planning.

o The potential impacts of climate change on the ecosystems and species involved should be considered in the context of long-term project sustainability and short-term priorities.


Iguana Pilot Project – Saint Lucia

GLISPA = Global Island Partnership IAS = Invasive alien species IABIN = Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network NZ-DOC = New Zealand Department of Conservation SL = Saint Lucia USDA = United States Department of Agriculture


• Build national capacity to assess extent of alien iguana species range in SL, esp. Soufriere region.

• Produce brief public service announcements on various aspects of SL iguana species and the alien iguana species in order to raise awareness about the differences and imp. of SL iguana

• Sensitise officers at ports of entry on threat of IAS under Component 4 of project

• Sensitive relevant stakeholders on the threat of IS to seek cooperation and ensure adherence to legislation pertaining to IAS, Customs and Quarantine under Component 4 of project

• Sensitive the public on threat of IAS, esp. introduced and possible impact on endangered SL iguana

• Evaluate the efficacy of live trapping at removing alien iguanas from the wild

• Evaluate the efficacy of using live dogs to track iguana nest sites

• Evaluate the effect of radio-tracking Judas iguanas on alien iguana detection

• Based on literature reviews and interviews, it seems clear that the green iguana in the Soufriere area is a recent introduction (@2008) for which at least one source of introduction (escape from a private collection) can be identified.

• The Reviewer was unable to obtain scientifically-supported evidence that the “Saint Lucia iguana” is endemic to the country and the project team recognizes that its taxonomic status is unresolved.

• While the two animals are apparently dissimilar in appearance and behavior, this does not necessarily differentiate them as endemic and alien. Iguana iguana shows considerable variation in appearance and behavior throughout its native and introduced range.

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to make it a priority to proceed with genetic and other relevant analysis to determine taxonomic status of the “Saint Lucia iguana.” If this animal turns out to be a less recent introduction of Iguana iguana from a different founder population that has become “naturalized” in the last century, shifts in project priorities and approaches may be warranted.

• That said, Iguana iguana has become invasive in other areas in which it has been introduced and this “evidence of invasiveness elsewhere” may alone justify removal and/or control of the recent introduction. In this regard, it would be valuable for the project team to assess potential impacts of the recent introduction aside from speculation that the two iguana populations might one day interact and the “Saint Lucia iguana” be genetically swamped out.


• Iguanas in affected zone around Soufriere will be closely monitored before and after eradication program

• Reported sightings documented (locations mapped using GPS)

• Location, counts and measurements of

• Presumably, the ultimately measure of success is eradication of the recently introduced population.


caught iguanas (followed by euthanasia)

• Location and counts of nests and eggs (followed by destruction of eggs)

• Field data placed in database

• Monthly and quarterly reports generated

• Weekly meetings with surveillance teams will be conducted and adjustments made


• Durrell Wildlife

• Local peoples

• Localities for two iguana populations

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to broaden its consultations/partnerships on eradication methodology, genetic analysis, and population estimation. Potential partners include USDA Wildlife Services, Island Conservation, and the Jamaica project iguana team.

4. Influence (effect of outcome on other relevant activities/initiatives): Project will support broader goals -

• Reduce the risk of IAS through awareness and sensitization of the general public and offers at ports of entry (under Component 4)

• Monitor project sites to provide early detection and responsive actions when IAS are anticipated

• Build national capacity in monitoring for early detection and response of IAS

• Encourage the formation of public-private partnerships including the pet trade, but reaching out to other sectors too.

Project will support broader outcomes (across components) –

• Increased national capacity to address potential risks posed to biodiversity of global significance from IAS

• Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posed to biodiversity of global significance from IAS

• Access to data and best practices established. Public awareness of IAS strengthened

• Increased prevention of new IAS introductions impacting global biodiversity

• Increased eradication and/or improved control management of IAS impacting global biodiversity

• The Reviewer encourages distribution of information through relevant data sharing systems, such as IABIN and GBIF, as well as communication/coordination with other groups focused on vertebrate removal from islands (e.g., Island Conservation, NZ-DOC, GLISPA).


• Topography/hydrology altered by Hurricane Tomas (making it harder to search)

• Budget insufficient for continuation of detector dog component

• Limitations on access to privately-owned land

• We don’t have an iguana population size estimate (see comments)

• This project would have likely benefited from more technical input from experts on vertebrate eradication in the earliest planning stages. It is facing substantial logistical challenges due to terrain and budget shortfalls for the chosen “dog approach” – which may not be the most cost-effective means of catching iguanas.

• The lack of information on populations size and


genetic identify of the two populations considerably hinders the teams identity to make well-informed, strategic decisions about this activity.

6. Existing resources: Four year MTIASIC project: US$ 132,846 from GEF US$ 235,860 co-finance commitment

7. Needed resources: Existing resources plus ca US$40,000 to roll out detection dog pilot to a level that can achieve eradication. Sustainable detector dog capacity-building would have a recurrent cost too.

• The Reviewer strongly encourages this team to strategically assess a wide-range of methodologies for iguana capture. This assessment should include a cost-benefit analysis. The colleagues references in box 3 could be very helpful in this regard.

• Falconry (Harris Hawks, etc.) might be more effective than dogs if the goal is largely to locate iguanas. Hawks might be able to remove small iguanas from trees. Pigs may be more cost-effective than dogs for locating nests.


• Advertising for field specialist and field assistants [Yr 1; sought through contacts, rather than formally advertised]

• Procurement of office/equipment [Yr 1; done]

• Interviewing potential candidates [Yr 1; hired; Yr 2 increased crew]

• Selection of specialists and government officers trained [Yr 1; done; regular follow-up training]

• Training in survey methodology [Yr 1; done; regular follow-up training]

• Acquisition of dogs [Yr 1; Piloted in year 2 with hired dog; planned to acquire dog in year 3, but put on hold due to budget constraints]

• Training of dogs in egg detection [Yr 1; Piloted in year 2]

• Training of dog handlers [Yr 1; Candidates selected in year 2, but put on hold due to budget constraints]

• Training in habitat mapping [Yr 1; done; regular follow-up training]

• Training in data management [Yr 1, 2, 3; done; regular follow-up training]

• Train field staff to employ traps/snares [Yr 1; Detection and capture training done with regular follow-up, but largely moved away from traps, as not most promising; will be reassessed using revised protocol – yrs 3&4]

• School lectures and town hall meetings in Soufriere area [Yr 1; two done in year 1; occasional follow-up]

• Reports and interviewees indicate that capture success has been relatively low (200 individuals thus far) and that visual searches and hand capture have been most successful – these are time consuming approaches requiring moderately to highly skilled staff.

• The Reviewer encourages the team to make genetic analysis, population analysis, and capture method experiments a priority. In addition to trying such methods as bait stations/traps, the team could also try establishing artificial nest sites for both trapping and nest destruction. The team might also consider organizing experienced vertebrate species eradication teams from other organizations for a short-term, intense removal effort. However, without a population estimate, it may be difficult to determine what impact such a removal effort has in terms of risk reduction.


• School lectures island wide [Yr 1-4; initiated through Youth for a; roll-out from year 3]

• Data collection: testing of project methods [Yr 1; Done and on-going for up-dates]

• Baseline survey in Soufriere area [Yr 1; Done and on-going for up-dates]

• Report of baseline survey [Yr 1; Done ]

• Establish live trapping grid [Yr 1; Established, but then suspended. Now a search grid; revised after Hurricane Tomas due to landscape changes]

• Trap grid and surveillance to stop theft [Yr 1-4; Established, but then suspended; no longer applicable]

• Post eradication survey [Yr 4]

• Quarterly report of activities [Yr 1-4; Done ]

• Annual report on progress [Yr 1-4; Done]

• Reporting data to global database [Yr 1-4; Profile submitted and posted in year 2]

• Production of scientific papers [Yr 3; Started in year 2]

• Preparation of brochures/posters [Yr 1; replaced by flyers and business cards in year 2]

• PSAs to be produced related to SL iguana and introduced iguana (English and Creole) [Native iguana exists; we moved away from PSA (which are nation-wide by default) for alien so we do not attract unwanted national attention to a very localized problem; strengthened local PR through local media/community instead]

• Signage in the pilot site about alien iguana with legislation pertaining to IAS [Drafted in yr 1, but not produced due to need for DCA permits; probably not worth effort]

• Billboard, posters and brochures re SL iguana and threat of alien iguana [replaced by flyers and business cards in year 2]

• Prepare response plan for dealing with IAS [Year 3 for iguana]

• Workshop to be conducted with national enforcement agencies [Yrs 3& 4 only if police used again more frequently]

• Workshop with field staff on id, capture, data collection, survey methods, GPS [Twice in year 2]

• Establish protocol for live capture and euthanasia [Protocol established by year 2; implementation incomplete, but on-going]

• Establish protocol for biological data collection [Done Q1 Y1]


• Establish protocol for dog handling and egg detection [Q1, Y2 for dog handling, but discontinued in yr3); under development for egg detection: radio-tracking Y3]

• Conduct visual searches followed by capture and euthanasia [Q1Y1 to present]

• The Reviewer encourages the team to carefully consider if the chemical euthanasia approach is the most humane under all project circumstances. Since the chemicals have to be administered by a licensed veterinarian who may not be immediately available, the animals have to endure the stress of captivity for one or more days prior to being euthanized. In some cases shooting the animals in trees and quickly pithing them may be more humane. Ideally, there should be more than one euthanasia method in the project toolkit so that the most humane method can be selected in each circumstance.

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? Broad stakeholder consultations (predecessor of current IASWG) to select priority pilot topics, alternating with small expert groups drafting pilot studies and preparing baseline reports. The iguana pilot was led by the Forestry Department in collaboration with Durrell.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? National Coordinator’s comment: The chosen approach worked well in Saint Lucia and was selected by those familiar with participatory techniques and the country mentality. It would have been better if the regional IAS coordinator from CABI had facilitated the first of these consultations to provide early guidance, particularly on: (1) “GEFable” projects: Saint Lucia needed to broaden the point of view from agricultural pests to environmental

IAS.


(2) the mechanics of co-finance commitments and subsequent implications for reporting, as this was not understood by all now assigned to collate co-finance data. Saint Lucia recognized this need prior to the final public consultation and acted accordingly, which turned out to be beneficial.

Durrell’s comments on what should have been done differently:

o Streamlined the procurement process o Brought implementation forward (as far forward as possible but certainly to include the Y1 iguana

nesting season) o Had more consultation with technical people having specific knowledge of the issue (e.g. Durrell

Coordinator) during the planning process o Investigated (inc costing) detector dog component earlier on o Radio-tracked alien iguanas from the outset

• Additional comments from project team: Durrell:

o It would be good to define “success”. Obviously, complete removal of all alien iguanas by end Y4 would be success. But to my mind, driving the population level so low that it is not viable (allee effects, etc) would also be a success, even if this small population persisted beyond Y4 (but not if it grew again). Driving the population level so low that it could be contained and controlled would be a successful outcome to my mind too, though not an eradication (this being in contrast to not attempting an eradication, which would likely result in an alien population that was much harder, if not impossible, to control and contain)

o These measures of success, particularly the latter two, are, I think, still realistic targets. There is a risk in that we cannot easily or reliably estimate the iguana population size (to do so would realistically require more effort and resources than the eradication itself), but population simulations suggest the problem is, for now, manageable.

o Contingency planning for failure is prudent though (planned for Y3). Even with failure (by the above standards of success), mechanisms (surveillance, removal, DNA banking for genetic surveillance) are being put in place that would allow eradication to be transitioned to control and containment, but deployment of these responses needs to be planned. Contingency planning is also very important for the management of the Saint Lucia iguana population should the alien iguana population spread (also planned for Y3).


o The Reviewer supports the comments made by the National Coordinator and Durrell above. o While Iguana iguana is invasive in other parts of its introduced range and therefore

eradication may be justified on this basis alone, best efforts need to be made to establish population estimates so to realistically determine eradication feasibility and possibly enact a higher scale of effort to achieve this result in the near term. If eradication is not shown to be feasible, then the project needs determine in a long-term control effort is cost-effective and how it would be enacted.

o It is unlikely that this project is going to be able to demonstrate significant impact of the “alien iguana” by project closure.


Maria Island Nature Reserve Pilot Project – Saint Lucia

GLISPA = Global Island Partnership GO/NGO = Government and Non-governmental Organizations IAS = Invasive alien species IABIN = Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network MALFF = Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry & Fisheries NZ-DOC = New Zealand Department of Conservation PSEPA = Pointe Sables Environmental Protected Area SL = Saint Lucia SLNT/OPAAL = Saint Lucia National Trust/OECS Protected Areas and Associated Livelihoods Project USDA Wildlife Services = US Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services

Strategic Planning Reviewer Comments 1. Desired final outcome:

• To protect the Maria Island Nature Reserve from the threat of IAS

• To enhance capacity and train personnel in the techniques necessary to monitor the marine and terrestrial areas of the reserve, for early detection and possible mitigation of the adverse effects posed by IAS

• To sensitise the local community (esp fishermen) and national population on the threats posed by IAS

• To enhance the capacity of quarantine officers and port workers in the detection of IAS

• Increased regional cooperation to reduce risk posed to biodiversity of global significance from IAS

• Minimised risk of new IAS introductions to Maria Island

• The project team is encouraged to establish a process for measuring success of the “sensitization” and other capacity building activities and incorporate feedback into a project improvement (adaptive management) process.

• See comment box 3 – The Reviewer encourages the team to seek communication/collaboration within/outside the region.


• Continuing absence of IAS

• Two trained specialists

• Four field officers trained

• Three fisheries officers trained

• Two forestry officers trained

• Two field assistants trained

• Workshops reports generated

• Officers certified

• Network established and functional

• Campaign materials produced

• Per box 8, with the exception of a few activities for which status is uncertain, this project seems on track to meet most of its objectives in a timely manner.

• Because of the nature of this project, the Review recommends explicitly incorporating a long-term monitoring program and a sustainability plan into the program of work.


• Maria Island Nature Reserve

• Ministry of Agriculture, Lands, Forestry & Fisheries (MALFF; executing agency)

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to consult/share information with additional groups with expertise on vertebrate eradication (esp. in island contexts). Examples include: USDA Veterinary Services, DOC-NZ, and GLISPA.


• Reviewer encourages the project team to make data collected available through an established


• Improves value of site to SLNT/OPAAL/development of PSEPA Management Plan

• Roll-out from Maria Islands to Rat Island and Praslin Island; Y1, Y2;

• GO-NGO Collaborations: Forestry Department, SLNT, Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Durrell/FFI Consultants (racer assessment) and Fisheries Department with SMMA

• Encourages the formation of public-private partnerships, e.g. dive association and tourism

• Lessons learnt are being made available for sharing with OECS

national database, as well as information sharing systems such as IABIN and GBIF, as appropriate.


• Surveys needed of marine environment to establish baseline data

• Current data is limited to fish and coral species

• White sea urchin has been overharvested and may be on verge of disappearing

• A wardening presence is needed for the off-shore islands to mitigate the risks of anthropogenic threats (IAS invasion but also fire, habitat destruction). Some discussions with SLNT on this (at least for the Maria Islands)

•

6. Existing resources: Four year MTIASIC project: US$ 137,172 from GEF US$ 355,783 co-finance commitment

•

7. Needed resources: While funding for this pilot is adequate, in-house human resource capacity remain a major limitation, particularly for the aquatic component

• See comment in box 3

• Reviewer encourages relationship building with UWI and other universities (nationally and abroad) to identify potential collaborators to serve immediate needs and assist with training of local agency staff etc. to meet long-term needs.


• Advertising for Field specialist, specialist assistants and field assistants [Yr 1; Sought internally, not formally advertised ]

• Procurement of office and equipment [Yr 1; Establishment of Southern Office abandoned due to prolonged real estate issues; other equipment largely purchased by end year 2]

• Interviewing potential candidates [Year 1; Not applicable]

• Selection of specialist assistants, field assistance, and government officers to be trained [Yr 1; Done in yr 1, but some revision in year 2]

• Candidates interviewed and selected, officers trained and assist with project [Yr

• See comment in box 2

• The project team seems well aware of the current logistical challenges.

• Final Reviewer should not adjustments to original implementation plan.


1; Interviews not applicable; training and assistance provided (Y1 to present)]

• Procurement of dive equipment [Yr 1; Done]

• Training in boat handling [Yr 1; Not applicable]

• Dive certification – open water [Yr 1; Four officers trained in year 2

• Dive certification – advanced open water [Yr 3]

• Species identification training [Yr 1; Twice in year 2]

• Data management training [Yr 1; Yr 1 and refresher training]

• Training in habitat mapping [Yr 1; Planned for Y3 – racer assessment?]

• Training in use of Map Maker [Yr 1; ArcGIS may be more suitable than Map Maker; needs revision]

• Report – training in data management and habitat mapping [Yr 1-3; Some under racer assessment in Y3]

• Mapping boundaries of Marine and terrestrial habitat [Yr 1; terrestrial yes (Maria Islands), marine physical demarcation on sea floor completed; bouys to be set Yr 3]

• Data collation: testing of project methods and development of project schedule and activities [Yr 1-2; Some since yr 1 (bait station monitoring, whiptail density estimation); some in Y3 (racer assessment)]

• Cabinet endorsement of boundaries [Yr 1-2; Maria Islands Reserve (islands only - was gazetted in 1980), PSEPA (not a reserve) was gazetted in Yr 1]

• Baseline survey of Maria Island and PSEPA marine area and other high risk areas [Yr 1; Whiptail baselines for both Maria Islands, Praslin Island and Rat Island; ecological baselines (pre- this project) for Rat and Dennery Islands]

• Report on baseline survey [Yr 2; Report of 2005 - update)]

• Identification of baseline samples collected [Yr 1-2; Status?]

• Report – Marine biodiversity in PSEPA and terrestrial biodiversity on Maria Island [Yr 2; Status?]

• Develop monitoring plan for PSEPA [Yr 2; Monitoring plan for bait station; implementation incomplete; strengthening planned and budgeted for Y3]

• Consultation for monitoring planning [Yr

• Status unclear

• Status unclear


2; Status?

• Consultation for response plan [Yr 2; Status?]

• Monitoring of PSEPA marine area and Maria Islands including high risk sites [Yr 3-4 Irregular monitoring since yr 1]

• Reporting data to global databases [Yr 3-4; ReefCheck]

• Preparation of brochures and posters [Yr 2-4; Well advanced (completed for Maria Islands Y2) and on-going; also signage]

• Preparation and broadcasting of TV PSAs [Yr 2-4; Well advanced and on-going]

• Preparation and publication of newspaper and supplements [Yr 3-4; Initiated in Yr 3]

• Stakeholder lectures [Yr 3-4; hand-on training instead of lectures]

• School lectures and field trips [Yr 2-4; Piloted in Yr 2, more planned]

• Status unclear

• Status unclear

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? Broad stakeholder consultations (predecessor of current IASWG) to select priority pilot topics, alternating with small expert groups drafting pilot studies and preparing baseline reports. The PSEPA pilot was co-led by the Fisheries Department (aquatic), the Forestry Department in collaboration with Durrell, and the Saint Lucia National Trust (SLNT) (terrestrial).

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? Logistics planning leaves room for improvement:

o In-house staff availability was overestimated, particularly by Fisheries Department o Boat access to offshore islands is costly and not as reliable as anticipated. Boat security is an issue

too o As a result of both, the monitoring lags behind desired schedule

• Additional comments from project team: Durrell:

o Bait station monitoring/maintenance is a relatively low-cost but recurrent activity. We should strengthen and develop linkages with PSEPA/SLNT and hotels to improve regular reliable boat access to defray costs in future and make the activity more sustainable.


o No substantial concerns for this project, assuming the project team makes a strong effort to overcome the logistic constraints and starts to develop a sustainability plan in the near term.


Aquatic IAS Awareness Campaign – Trinidad and Tobago


Strategic Planning Reviewer Comments

1.Desired final outcome:

• Increased level of awareness of

stakeholders (students, yacht owners &

operators, marine tour operators, etc) as it

relates to aquatic IAS

• Increased level of awareness of the

concept of IAS in school

• This project replaces the Caulerpa pilot project.

• Ideally the goal should be a change in

behaviour of stakeholders – actions that

minimize the introduction, spread and impact

of IAS.

• Per notes made in the body of the report, the

Reviewer encourages project leadership to

consider putting funds toward other projects

rather than initiate this one. Staff are already

spread thin and the project requires better

direction and expert leadership (RARE, etc).


• Creation of a booklet on aquatic IAS for

schools

• Survey results

• Increased awareness of stakeholders

• National and regional dissemination of

information

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to

revise this project in keeping with the principles

of “social marketing” – i.e. that

methods/approaches are employ that explicitly

intend to impact human behavior - to

minimize the risk of introduction and spread of

IAS.


• All areas in Trinidad and Tobago

• Ministry of Food Production, Land and

Marine Affairs: Research Division – GEF

Project Office (executing agency),

• Institute of Marine Affairs, Fisheries

Division, Department of Marine Resources

and Fisheries, Tobago House of Assembly

(assist with public awareness activities)

• It would be useful to identify key stakeholder

groups, as well as the messages and delivery

means that are most relevant for each.

• RARE could prove to be a valuable

collaborator/consultant on this project.

4. Influence (effect of outcome on other relevant

activities/initiatives):

• This project will be integrated with and

provide support for existing programmes

currently being undertaken by the Institute

of Marine Affairs such as the school

outreach program and the lionfish

awareness and surveillance

• It will act as a channel for the increased

level of awareness of stakeholders such as

yacht owners / operators about aquatic

IAS

• Ideally work developed in Trinidad and

Tobago would provide the basis for an aquatic

education/outreach campaign throughout the

Caribbean region. The Reviewer encourages

the project team to have a “region wide” vision.


o No comments given



o Financial resources : GEF funding 12,778

US; co financing 83,811


o Graphic artist

o Communication specialist

o Digital camera

• The Reviewer encourages the team to

hire/contract someone with social marketing

expertise. RARE may be able to provide

advice/support in this regard.

8. Implementation activities (ideally in

chronological order). All activities scheduled for Yr

3:

• Survey of the level of awareness of key

stakeholders

• Development of an informational

campaign for yacht owners / operators

• Development of a booklet on IAS for

schools

• Integration of information on marine IAS

into IMA’s existing school outreach

programme

• Lionfish awareness and surveillance

• Because many stakeholders in the Caribbean do

not read well and have an oral tradition, the

Reviewer encourages this team to employ a

multi-media approach to this project.

• The Reviewer encourages the team to continue

the project into year four and to consider

sustainability of the campaign after the GEF

project closes.


The concept of this project was developed at a meeting with the UNEP Task Manager, the Project Manager, the Project Director (Trinidad & Tobago) and a representative from the Institute of Marine Affairs (IMA). A proposal was then created based on the decisions taken at this meeting and forwarded to the IMA. Subsequent discussions were held with the National Coordinator (T&T), the Project manager and representatives of IMA to decide on the activities for the project.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? No comments given

• Additional comments from project team: No comments given

• Additional comments from Reviewer: The Reviewer strongly encourages the project team to explore working with RARE to develop a social marketing (pride) campaign targeted at specific stakeholders (related to specific IAS pathways of concern) and school children. Alternatively, this project should be dropped in lieu of supporting other projects that are showing early success and long-term potential.


Caulerpa taxifolia Pilot Project – Trinidad and Tobago

IAS = Invasive alien species Ct= Caulerpa taxifolia


• Protect the biodiversity and integrity of seagrass communities in Trinidad and Tobago from the “aquarium” strain of Ct

• Determine if the Ct observed on the west coast of Trinidad is the native or the ‘aquarium’ strain. If ‘aquarium’:

• Determine the extent of spread

• Establish and implement systems and protocols for the speedy eradication of the potentially invasive Ct by chemical and physical methods

• Develop systems for the continuous monitoring of seagress beds in Trinidad and Tobago for the potentially invasive Ct

• This project has been completely revised. This decision was taken because scientific test during the preliminary stages of the project indicated that the strain of Caulerpa present in Trinidad and Tobago was not invasive.

• Interviews indicate that the species identification was determined in the GEF project planning stage. It would have been ideal for this pilot project to have been pulled at that time so time and other resources could have been directed to an IAS issue of known significance.


• Strain identified

• Survey results

• Evaluation of trainees

• Re-establishment of native species

• National and regional dissemination of information


• Coastal areas of Trinidad and Tobago with special emphasis on the west coast of Trinidad

• Institute of Marine Affairs (executing agency)


• No comments given








• DNA analysis of Ct at Williams Bay [Yr 1; Status?]

• Survey to determine extent of spread along west coast of Trinidad and Tobago [Yr 1; Status?]

• No longer applicable


• Development of National Emergency Action Plan for the eradication/management of Ct

• Training of scientists in eradicating Ct [Yr 1; Status?]

• Development and implementation of eradication methods for Ct [Yr 1-3; Status?]

• Ecosystem restoration [Yr 2-3; Status?]

• Monitoring programme to confirm absence of Ct and monitor restoration of seagress beds [Yr 2-3; Status?]

• Public education and awareness campaign to heighten awareness of IAS in general and Ct specifically [Yr 1-3; Status?]

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? No comments given



• Additional comments from Reviewer: o For future reference, the Reviewer recommends that the GEF no accept IAS pilot project unless it can

first be demonstrated that the organism in question is a) non-native and b) causing harm or showing a strong potential to cause harm in the environmental context


Frosty Pod Prevention Pilot Project – Trinidad and Tobago

IAS = Invasive alien species Mr = Moniliophthora roreri (frosty pod rot)

Strategic Planning Reviewer Comments 1. Desired final outcome:

• To protect cocoa growing areas in Trinidad and Tobago from Mr

• To strengthen detection and interception of Mr to prevent entry

• To establish systems and protocols for the speedy eradication of this IAS

• To develop systems for the continuous monitoring of ports of entry and cocoa growing areas for the presence of Mr

• The Reviewer encourages the team to explicitly expand the target outcomes to include relevant aspects of biodiversity conservation


• Surveys

• Evaluation of personnel

• Pathway analysis report

• System and protocol ready for us

• Prevention Plan which includes regular monitoring, data collection in place

• Informed public

• Emergency Action Plan

• Ideally, prevention and/or early detection (eradication) over the long-term would be the most important measures of success


• All cocoa growing areas of Trinidad, esp. the seacoasts of northeastern and south western peninsulas (approx. 6,900 ha)

• Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs – Research Division (executing agency), Forestry Division, North and South Regional Administrations, Extension Division, Cocoa and Coffee Industry Board of Trinidad & Tobago and Division of Agriculture and the Environment, Tobago House of Assembly (public awareness)

•


• Support government’s current efforts to revitalize the country’s cocoa industry

• Assist with safeguarding the region’s cocoa industry and supports initiatives in other cocoa producing countries such as St. Lucia, Jamaica and the Dominican Republic

• Clear linkages to biodiversity conservation are encouraged for this UNEP-GEF project


• If emergency action prevention plans are not implemented



• Staff such as lab assistants, agricultural officers

• Laboratories

• High resolution microscopes

• Financial resources : GEF funding 172,618 US; co financing 204,731

7. Needed resources: No comments given


• Preparation of leaflets for air passengers [Yr 1; complete: brochures were produced and are being distributed to all stakeholders not just air passengers only]

• Preparation of posters for air and seaports [Yr 1-3; Status: In process: expected to be completed by Q2 Y3]

• Preparation of broadcasting of TV public service announcements [Yr 1-3; Status: In process: expected to be completed by Q4 Y3]

• Preparation and publication of newspaper articles [Yr 1-4; Status: In process: expected to be completed by Q4 Y3]

• Production of rolling digital screen display of ports of entry [Yr 1-3; In process]

• Rapid baseline survey to confirm that Mr is absent from Trinidad and Tobago [Yr 1; complete: 225 farms in the country were surveyed during this baseline and none showed the presence of Mr]

• Training of trainers in field and lab identification [Yr 1; complete: 9 persons were trained in Costa Rica in October 2010]

• Training of all stakeholders by officers who have been trained [Yr 2-4; Ongoing: through the programs of the Research Division and the Cocoa and Coffee industry board farmers and agricultural officer continue to be trained in the field identification and impact sof the disease ]

• Pathway analysis of possible means of introduction of Mr [Yr 1-2; Complete]

• Development of National Emergency Action Plan for eradication/management as soon as detected [Yr 3]

• Establishment of a hotline so that farmers and members of the public can quickly report any suspicious systems [Yr 1; complete]

• Set up and implement systems for the continuous monitoring and surveillance of

• If not already in place, the Reviewer encourages the team to work with industry to develop/implement prevent biosecurity protocols. This would likely reduce the risk of Frosty pod introduction, as well as the introduction of other plant pathogens moving through the same pathway.


Mr [Yr 1-4; Status?]

• Development of database for survey results [Yr 1-4; complete: Database established using data from baseline survey and will be updated as subsequent surveys are conducted.]

Status unclear

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? The project was selected during the PPG phase of the project development lead by Dr. Mario Fortune of the MFPLMA in consultation with other stakeholders.



• Additional comments from Reviewer: As this is a project funded by UNEP-GEF, the Reviewer would like to see more explicit connections to biodiversity conservation/environmental protection. Prevention requires an indefinite investment of resources. The project team is encouraged to build a sustainability component into this project and to consider creating an emergency response fund for rapid response when/if it is detected in the country.


Green Mussel Pilot Project – Trinidad and Tobago

IAS = Invasive alien species Pv = Perna viridis (green mussel)


• Conservation of the ecological balance of marine and coastal ecosystems of Trinidad and Tobago with respect to Pv

• An ecological assessment to determine the current distribution, community structure and investigation of the occurrence of natural predators

• An economic assessment to determine the cost of its control as a fouling organism since its introduction

• Determination of an effective control of Pv as a fouling organism

• Investigation of pathogens with Pv as a human health concern

• The Reviewer would have liked to have seen more explicit emphasis placed on pathway analysis and associated prevention measures through policy and education/outreach activities, conducted in cooperation with relevant organizations.


• Ecological survey

• Understanding of selected Pv population dynamics

• Trainee evaluations

• Options for control and management identified

• Information shared on national and regional level

• The measures of success to not explicitly indicate that prevention, eradication or control measures are to be taken. The Reviewer encourages the project team to explicitly include these relevant actions as a measure of project success.


• Coastal areas of Trinidad and Tobago with emphasis on west coast of Trinidad

• Institute of Marine Affairs (executing agency)

• Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs: Research Division, (assist with public education)

• University of the West Indies


• Will lead to the development of suitable mechanisms for the control of Pv fouling organism, which will be recommended to industrial firms for use

• Assist with the implementation of the GloBallast project in the country

5. Barriers to success (actual and perceived)

• Weather conditions

• Accessibility of survey sites

• Questionnaires and interviews indicate that there have also been issues in building trust/relationship with the shipping industry

6. Existing resources: o Staff such as lab assistants, divers; boat


operators o Laboratories o Boat o Financial resources: GEF funding 46,381 US;

co financing 110,636

7. Needed resources: o Equipment for development of PSA and

documentation of survey – underwater camera

o Lab equipment – vials, alcohol, forceps

• The Reviewer encourages the project team to work with relevant organisms to proactively address the fouling pathway through social marketing techniques


• Survey of potential Pv colonisation sites (30 days) [Yr 1; Status Ongoing expected to be completed by end of Q1 Yr3]

• Determine the community structure of mangrove prop roots fauna in Caroni Swamp, pier pilings as well as rocky substrate associated with Pv by quarterly surveys: 2 days every 3 months [Yr 1; Status? Ongoing expected to be completed by end of Q1 Yr3]

• Survey of industrial companies (private and public) using a questionnaire to determine economic cost of controlling Pv [Ongoing expected to be completed by end of Q1 Yr3]

• Training workshop in the management and control of Pv [Yr 1; Status?]

• Identification of management option for trial

• Management of Pv [Yr 1-3; Status: not yet started will be undertaken when baseline is completed]

• Investigation of human pathogens associated with Pv [Yr 1-2; Status: not yet started]

• Production of public service announcement video for Pv [Yr 2-3; Status: Activity not yet started, however it is scheduled to be completed by the end of Yr 3]

• For the most part, this project seems to be achieving the objects set forth.

• The Reviewer would have liked to have seen explicit objectives to make concrete progress on prevention and control of Pv and other fouling organisms.

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? This project was selected during the PPG phase of the project development. This process was led by Dr. Mario Fortune of the MFPLMA in consultation key personnel from the Institute of Marine Affairs and other stakeholders.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? No comments made.

• Additional comments from project team: To review the decision to look at the human pathogen issues of Pv expertise could be outsourced. The National Coordinator will do the costing.


• Additional comments from Reviewer: None. Comments made above.


Nariva Swamp Pilot Project – Trinidad and Tobago



• To assist in the reforestation of the palm swamp forest of the Nariva Swamp by the establishment of 40,000 palm plants

• To ensure that palms introduced into Nariva Swamp are free of IAS, esp. red palm mite and coconut moth

• To develop management protocols for the red palm mite and coconut moth

• To apply management protocols developed for palms in the Nariva Swamp and to coconuts on the sea barrier between the swamp and the Atlantic Ocean

• The activities of the project were revised in response to CABI’s review of the project at the inception meeting in 2009. Red palm mite had already established in the country.



• Survey records

• Nursery stock records

• Database development and management

• Development of IAS early warning system

• Graduate thesis project

• Restoration of habitat


• Red mite is established, early warning no longer relevant


• Nariva Swamp (6,234 ha)

• Ministry of Food Production, Land and Marine Affairs – Research Division (executing agency): Forestry Division (executing agency) , , North and South Regional Administrations, Extension Division, Pointe-a- Pierre Wildfowl Trust (public awareness)

• Environmental Management Authority (technical advice)

• University of the West Indies – St. Augustine (assist with research programmes and technical advice)

•


• Would have a positive impact on the outcome of other project presently being conducted in the Nariva Swamp such as the Nariva Swamp Reforestation Project and the Macaw relocation project; which are being conducted by other entities such as the Forestry Division and the Point-a –Pierre Wildfowl Trust.

• It also impacts upon the activities conducted in the Swamp such as ecotourism.

• Development of an effective biocontrol agent could benefit every country in which red palm mite has been introduced or will be introduced in the future.


• Will lead to the protection of this area of high biological diversity

5. Barrier to success (actual and perceived): o Weather conditions / access to sample sites

• Failure to develop/employ biocontrol in a timely manner is a significant potential barrier to success

6. Existing resources: o Staff such as lab and field assistants, o Boat o Laboratories o High resolution microscopes o Financial resources : GEF funding 122,004

US; co financing 155,681

7. Needed resources: o Laptop for use in development of database

and the conduct of training sessions.


• Baseline surveys of pests and target species [Yr 1; 85% complete]

• Sourcing and collecting palm seedlings [Yr 1-4; Activity removed from project]

• Establishing seedling nurseries

• Seedling production [Yr 1; Activity removed from project]

• Transplanting seedlings to selected sites in the Nariva Swamp [Yr 1-4; Activity removed from project]

• Eradicating IAS in the Nariva Swamp [Yr 2-3; Activity changed]

• Re-supplying seedlings if required [Yr 2-4; Activity removed from project]

• Establishing a co-ordinating unit for both the public and private sector to report sightings in the Nariva Swamp of both local invasive species and IAS [Year 1; The reporting of sightings of the IAS present in the swamp will be done via an IAS hotline and email address which has been established by the Research Division]

• Regular monitoring of the project site to assess the status and risks on palm species especially with respect to the susceptibility to red palm mite and coconut moth [Yr 1-4; To date only baseline studies have been conducted]

• Developing eradication/control methods for the red palm mite and coconut moth on various native plant species [Yr 1-4; In process]

• Eradicating/controlling, managing the IAS using biological, chemical and cultural methods – if the need arises [Yr 2-4; Not yet started. Due to the nature of the IAS and its host species the main focus will be on biological control mechanisms are

• Interviews/questionnaires revealed that there is substantial concern that not enough proactive effort is being made to fully develop/employ one or more biocontrol agents to address the red palm mite. The Reviewer encourages the project team to consider this a matter of urgency.

• The project team is encouraged to proactively consider near- and long-term conservation measures for Nariva Swamp (i.e. palm dependent species) if biocontrol is not successful.

• The Final Reviewer is encouraged to note that this project has been revised and thus some of the activities have been removed from the project.


currently being developed. Additionally chemical control mechanisms will not be considered for use in this project.

• Survey of indicator palm spp. Post-intervention [Yr 4]

• Survey to establish absence of invasive palm pests [Yr 4]

• Greenhouse / pathogenic study to determine the susceptibility of the palms present in the Nariva Swamp, red palm mite. [Yr3]

• What was the selection process for this project and who was involved? The project was selected during the PPG phase of the project development lead by Dr. Mario Fortune of the MFPLMA in consultation with other stakeholders.

• In retrospect, what would you have done differently? Adaptive changes to the methodology have already been instituted.

• Additional comments from project team: Generally, the project implementation was delayed due to the late signing of the agreement and the delays in revising the methodology, as well as unfavorable weather conditions which made accessing the project site difficult.

• Additional comments from Reviewer: Emphasizing comment made above… Interviews/questionnaires revealed that there is substantial concern that not enough proactive effort is being made to fully develop/employ one or more biocontrol agents to address the red palm mite. The Reviewer encourages the project team to consider this a matter of urgency. This pilot is unlikely to demonstrate substantial impact on red palm mite by the close of the GEF project.


Annex 9: Responses to Questionnaire Documenting Project Accomplishments,

Hopes, Challenges, and Opportunities Note: Careful effort was made by the Reviewer to accurately reflect the responses received by the interviewees. If multiple perspectives emerged on the same topic, these are reported as received – i.e. the Review chose to reflect varying perspectives in transparent manner rather make a determination regarding the “accuracy” of any personal perspective/opinion. In a few cases, seemingly opposing views were presented. In instances where substantially different views might be impacting project effectiveness, the Reviewer made recommendations for further assessment by the Task Manager in cooperation with the regional and national executive agencies. The timing allocated for this Evaluation did not permit the Reviewer to “investigate” substantially differing opinions in detail. (*) indicates that this point was made by several respondents

1. Relationship of the respondents to the project:

• Only a small percentage of the respondents have been engaged since the planning phase. However,

these individuals have been long-term project champions and have the “biggest picture” views of the

project.

• The majority of the respondents were not involved in the planning of the GEF project.

• Many of the respondents have been involved in the project for 12 months or fewer.

• All of the respondents see great value in the project, but had some recommendations for near-term

improvement.

• Most of the respondents largely took a project- or national-level perspective in their responses.

2. What are the major project accomplishments to date?

Regional Wide

• *Heightened awareness of invasive alien species – issue and impacts. This is particularly true at the

Steering Committee level.

• *Regional strategy and action plan drafted

• *Fully functioning Steering Committee

• *Establishment of national invasive alien species working groups

• * Work on all of the pilot projects, but especially the two lionfish projects (Jamaica and Bahamas).

They have provided concrete examples/experiences and lessons learned that are transferable anywhere

lionfish is or could become an issue. Furthermore, the GEF project has played a pivotal role in

coordinating a regional lionfish strategy, and is also collaborating with the Pacific Invasive Initiative

on marine issues.

• *Building UWI collaboration with the government. Need to find a way to ensure this continues when

the GEF project ends.

• Increased capacity to serve the region with economic analysis (but further capacity building still

needed).

• Relationship building among project participants.

• CIASNET website creation – but need to maximize its use.

• The project is building capacity at the national level for prevention, eradication, and control efforts.

• The project supports existing regional coordinating mechanisms, such as CISWG, and it is pursuing

other regional organizational to establish coordinating mechanisms for marine and aquatic IAS.

Country Specific The Bahamas

• *Local – capacity building: Establishment and training of task team members under lionfish training

and collection protocol etc.


• *Development of pilot site interpretation materials and education/outreach/training on the lionfish in

particular.

• Change in the local mind set about the lionfish.

• Development of an in-country project website.

• Preparation and distribution of informational materials for the pet trade.

• Annual public awareness activities being conducted.

• Production and airing of TV and radio PSAs.

• Established lionfish population control experiment.

• Ongoing project management, planning and financial accounting.

• Identification of mangrove, coral reef and near-shore study sites on four islands in the Bahamas (New

Providence, Andros, Eleuthra, Exuma Cays).

• Quarterly surveys – native fish abundance and sizes, lionfish abundance and removals (Eleuthra).

• Revisions to invasive species management plans.

The Dominican Republic

• Resolution from the Ministry creating the National Invasive Species Committee

• Completion of the Invasive Species Strategy.

• The large amount of data obtained from different organizations.

• Feasibility assessment for two pilot projects and the follow up workshop in March 2010.

• Capacity building – training of Ministry of Environment personnel in IAS management.

• Baseline surveys of stakeholder awareness.

• Involvement of stakeholders and important partners, including the development of methodologies for

engaging local communities.

• Interest of the local people in the donkey eradication on Cabritos.

• Incorporating a local solutions that is in the interest of project partners.

Jamaica

• The project motivated restarting of the IAS Working Group (National Steering Committee) which now

seems to be running well.

• Awareness of the impact of IAS in protected areas is much improved – though still needs attention.

• Drafts of the freshwater and marine components of the Regional IAS Strategy.

• Creation of livelihood opportunities through the management of IAS.

• Establishment of the Marine IAS Lab by UWI and lionfish research programme in particular –

including publication of papers, participation in conferences, engagement of students and interns,

lionfish database, and development and implementation of a training programme. Has raised

awareness of the IAS issue in general and engaged stakeholders at all levels. Highly visible.

• The Black River project motivated efforts to find people with technical skill and interest in the issue.

This may provide long-term sources of talent for the country. That project has now successfully

completed plot establishment.

• Progressive removal of IAS that threaten the Jamaican iguana. This team is highly dedicated and doing

a considerable amount of work with very little resources. This represents one of the rare success stories

in the region. Results have been published and presented in professional meetings.

Saint Lucia

• Fundamental shift by agricultural scientists to view IAS as an environmental issue; recognizing the

impact of IAS on the ecosystems which support agriculture.

• Signed on to the IMO ballast water agreement.

• Increased awareness of Customs’ role in IAS intradiction.


• Project implementation unit established within existing structures of MALFF.

• A compendium of baseline analysis was completed and posted on CIANET.

• The National Invasive Species Strategy (NISS) was prepared with stakeholder consultation.

• Attracted significant leverage funds. The total co-finance exceeded 90% of Saint Lucia GEF CEO-

approved commitment over the four-year period.

• The control programme for the green iguana seems to have been successful – despite Durrell Wildlife

not being able to quantify their success rate. Methodologies have been tested (e.g., dog) and about 200

animals have been captured.

• Lionfish as a “poster child.” A lionfish taskforce has been created. This project demonstrates what can

be achieved by being proactive. Fisher folks and divers are prepared for the lionfish arrival.

Trinidad and Tobago

• Regional Terrestrial Working Group chaired by Trinidad and Tobago.

• Effective and functioning National Steering Committee.

• Draft national strategy.

• Final draft list of invasive alien species.

• Capacity building and strengthening of Ministry staff in project execution.

• Engagement of wide cross-section of NGOs and agencies in the project.

• For the red palm mite project: better understanding of the scale of the impact, baseline survey of

palms, 90% of sampling completed, identification of additional pest/disease problems as a result of the

surveys, and identification of new hosts for red palm mite. Identification of 3/9 fungi that show

promise for biocontrol agents for red palm mite. CABI is responsible for the next steps.

• Frosty Pod Pilot Project activities such as public awareness campaign, baseline survey, training,

pathway analysis, etc.

• The majority of the sampling and sorting has been completed, and the work plan is on target, for the

Perna viridis project.

• Development and production of lionfish poster and brochure and inclusion of lionfish issue in school

outreach activities.

• Identification of Caulerpa and article on Caulerpa in CABI newsletter.

3. What are the major challenges observed?

Region Wide Administration/Direction

• *Changing staff at all levels of the project has led to a loss in project knowledge and memory – new

people coming into the project are not being made aware of what has already been accomplished.

• *Financial reporting has been a significant challenge. The needs/timelines have been unclear and it is

costly and time consuming to meet the expectations on time. Often expectations cannot be met. There

have been professional/political challenges created when more senior colleagues are informed that

reporting is late. This does not build relationship constructively. It creates a lack of trust and barrier to

further work.

• *Co-finance was not properly explained to collaborators and some have indicated that they were asked

to commit co-finance for the purpose of the project being endorsed. Some organisations that pledged

co-finance (e.g., GISP) no longer exist, others have budget shortfalls and can no longer contribution,

while others (e.g., UWI) are not benefiting from the original pledge because associated documentation

cannot be located. “In-kind has become unkind.”


• *GEF/UNEP rule that GEF funding cannot be used for engaging public servants outside of traditional

work hours without special exemption. Limits technical continuity and administrative and field

support. Ultimately, doesn’t foster capacity building or motivate participation.

• *No granting mechanisms built into the project. This has made it very difficult to work with partners

constructively and has resulted in delays and, at times, tension that wouldn’t otherwise exist.

• *Lack of political will to prioritise the IAS and take an interest in the project at a level that will lead to

sustainability.

• *What was planned was not realistic and required substantial revision/time in many cases, especially

the pilot projects. Unrealistic timelines for project execution. Overestimated rate of potential progress.

• *Process needs better overall organization. The process is not clear to all the project partners, nor are

the project partners as effectively engaged as they could be. Role of project partners not well defined

up front. Roles of partnership still need clarifying in some cases.

• *Regional project management with limited flexibility (countries are expected to fit into CABI

management structure etc.) and limited resources to provide support/training to project participants.

• *Considerable delay in signing start-up agreements with the various countries. This delayed the hiring

of the national coordinators, as well as project start up/implementation.

• *Lack of emphasis on frameworks and tools to address invasion pathways and inspection

procedures/capacity.

• *Limited access to best practices and tools. The CIASNET website should, in part, serve this function

for the region.

• *Burnout/overload. Many project participants are having to carry out substantial work obligations

related to the project and other professional activities. More support staff and/or project-dedicated

positions are needed. In some contexts, the project may have taken on too much for the current

capacity level.

• It took considerable effort to build the capacity of the national coordinators and empower their

independence from CABI.

• *It is ultimately up to the countries to implement the projects. If the governments aren’t committed

and/or too bureaucratic, it is very difficult to get the work accomplished in a timely manner.

• Keeping the group working on common objectives when it is expensive and difficult to set up in-

person meetings across the islands.

• Limited funding to do research and to participate in conference as a project partner.

• Institutional lethargy, coordination, sustained priorities.

Communication, Cooperation, and Culture

• *Relationships between organizations with shared missions needed to come together in the very early

stages of the planning process and are still weak overall. Emphasis needs to be places on building

stronger cross-linkages within/outside the region. There has been a lack of proactive effort to bring a

broader array of key stakeholders to the table, including Customs, tourists, traders, etc.

• *Lack of feedback on overall project progress. It is very difficult to determine who is doing what,

sometimes even within the same country.

• *Prior to the project, the countries had limited capacity outside of the agricultural sector to deal with

IAS, and the agricultural sector didn’t think from an “IAS perspective” – only pests and diseases.

Many people are still largely seeing the issue as “pests and diseases.” Far greater emphasis needs to be

placed on proactively communicating “the big picture.”

• *Language barrier (English/Spanish), as well as some cultural barriers, to communicating effectively

among the countries in the project.

• *Science needs to be translated for various audiences. There is a general lack of expertise to do this

within the region. People need to be trained and/or more resources need to be available to work with


capable consultants. Having artists engaged is important too since written information is not as useful

in the regions.

• Awareness of the project needs to be achieved more broadly and grounded in the specific project

activities/invasive species issues.

• Poor ability of the project to demonstrate the linkages between people and IAS. This is absolutely

necessary if you want to get governments to spend money to resolve this issue.

• The culture seems to be more response-oriented (reactive). The concept of prevention is not widely

practiced. There is also a territorial nature to the culture.

• There is a culture of wanting to “bring things home” (plants and animals). They won’t declare what

they have because they want to keep it.

Law and Policy

• *There is a lack of strategic, proactive effort to address the policy component – including pathways,

control and eradication.

• Inability to apply/enforce existing laws and international regulations relevant to invasive alien species.

• The responsibility for drafting legislation on IAS falls within the portfolio of several Ministries and

agencies.

• It is extremely difficult to enforce activities at ports of entry – there are official and unofficial ports and

relatively easy access at many places around the island. People who want to bring things in illegally

learn the hours of port operation and come in after hours.

Pilot Projects

• *Logistics for the pilot projects took far longer than anticipated to get underway and some basic

equipment/supplies are needed for most of the projects. The process has been very bureaucratic (e.g.,

the concept of invoices is not common).

• *Some of the pilot projects needed major redirection or even needed to be closed.

• The GEF project reviewers may not have had sufficient technical expertise to identify potential

problems – such as the selection of target species and approaches for the pilot projects.

• Manpower for the pilot projects is limited and has been some turnover that has created additional

challenges in timing, etc.

Explicit Needs Identified

• *Need a train-the-trainers programme in economic analysis in order to build further capacity.

Economic analysis is key to political support and policy change.

• *Lack of awareness of the project – need far greater, proactive promotion of the project at the national

and regional level, as well as higher level of regional planning/linkages.

• Need to develop concrete recommendations and actions to put local stakeholders in capacity to provide

an early warning response to new invasions.

• Limited data for economic analysis (included economic information, satellite images, etc.). This needs

to be obtained through partnership building and with grant support.


• Scheduling of training and survey events, with limited capacity and scheduling conflicts.

• The size of the Bahamian banks and number of islands makes lionfish surveying difficult and costly.

Research is confounded by the removal of lionfish for consumption.


• The National Committee has not been working on project implementation. The National Coordinator

has attempted a consultation process but it has not been fruitful.


• The project is being implemented with little engagement of the National Committee and is thus not

likely to have much impact.

• Unanticipated level of public/local peoples concern regarding target species (donkeys) eradication.

There is a need for better consultation to determine how best to serve the community’s needs and

which methodologies work best given the specific context of the project.

• Difficulties finding appropriate volunteers and trainees.

• Coordinating time needs for staff from different partners.

• Informing partners of process and coordinating and aligning partner goals and perceived benefits.

• Traditional use/consideration of invasive animal as charismatic species – donkeys and goats.

• Sporadic participation of project team members.

Jamaica

• It is hard to find adequately trained technical people.

• Outreach is extremely time-consuming. The importance is recognized. However, it requires dedicated,

well-trained staff. It is taking substantial time away from research duties.

• Overcoming the biases about the lionfish – poisonous vs. venomous, taste, etc.

• Overcoming the lack of trust of the government in order to collect information and further engage

stakeholders in the lionfish project.

• The goat islands component of the project is currently stalled due to government issues – not wanting

to relinquish the island for a natural reserve when there may be an opportunity to sell or develop them.

Saint Lucia

• *Getting policymakers’ (ultimately Ministers’) support, including financial support. More needs to be

done to communicate the economic implications of IAS.

• People’s reading capacities are limited. More emphasis needs to be put on videos and posters for

education/outreach.

• Lack of legislative support focused on animal species and to allow access to private lands to address

IAS. Some land owners have refused to allow access for the search and removal of IAS. (Saint Lucia)

• The scientific integrity and effectiveness of the iguana projects is not clear. Is the “native” species truly

a native species? Is it realistic to control/eradicate the recent introduction? Detectability is an issue.

There is limited funding for tracking dogs, genetics work, etc.

• The dive companies are spread out, and often territorial.

Trinidad and Tobago

• *Accessibility/site logistics of most of the pilot projects.

• *The concern for finding a biocontrol agent for red palm mite may not be as high as it needs to be.13

• Appointment of MFPLMA as the National Executing agency. Abdication of EMA from

leading/involvement in the project let to delays. EMA should be requested to play a more proactive

role in future GEF projects.

• The government funding was approved, but spending funds in a timely manner seems to be elusive.

• Logistical implementation of pilot project activities in the Nariva Swamp Pilot Project due to

accessibility

• Contacting industrial firms to sample for Perna viridis. Persistence has helped overcome this so far.

• Replacement of the Caulerpa project was not discussed in advance with project personnel. This

created a challenge as expectations and funding for the former project could not be simply applied to

13 Upon reviewing the Evaluation, the National Coordinator for Trinidad and Tobago noted that finding a biocontrol agent is a ministerial level priority.


another project. The Institute of Marine Affairs did not wish to take the lead on the project due to

limited manpower and other commitments. The issue was not discussed until July 2011.

4. What are the major lessons that have been learned from the project thus far? How will these lessons

be incorporated into the second term of the project?

Administration

• *Need far greater, proactive promotion of the project and greater networking among interested parties.

• * It takes considerable time, money, logistical support and technical expertise to execute a project of

this nature. They support needs were not well-anticipated.

• *A gap exists between project concept and project implementation. A project needs to have flexibility



• *To be successful in the near and long-term, the project must have a dedicated project team/staff with

clear, focused objectives.

• *Champions are key to project and regional network success. Champions are not always the most

technically sophisticated individuals – they are people who are highly influential. Progress is highly

dependent of the drive and enthusiasm of a few key individuals. Need champions at all levels and

across stakeholder groups.

• *The pilot projects have the potential to push broader programmes and organizations. They can also


• *Needed better project concept planning, scheduling and execution in the project formulation phase.

• *Need for more proactive and positive support by CABI in project activities, and greater direct


• *The co-financing issues must be much better understood before a project is initiated.

• *Need more regional meetings in which everyone can get together who is interested in participating –



• *People are spread too thin. The project needed to anticipate more resources for people dedicated just

to the project.

• *Doing the regional strategy first has helped to gain overall project visibility and buy in from high


• Local partnerships are vital to project success and local partners (individuals and institutions) should

be identified, encouraged, and promoted. They have an important role in project sustainability.

• Long-term support for any project needs to be considered early in the project and be included in the


• When you are working with organizations that have limited administrative flexibility, you can’t


• The challenges created by the language/cultural differences throughout the region should not be

underestimated.

• It is useful to break the issue down to terrestrial, freshwater, and marine components. It allows for

more targeted action and recommendations.

• A collaborative approach is needed for project management and information sharing.

• There has been difficulty in convincing funders to put major money into the project.

• Reporting needs to be timely and is necessary to get the work to broader audiences.

• The most successful work effectively engages university and NGO experts.

• It is very important to clarify partnership arrangements, especially for written agreements.

• Need a project advocate at the highest levels of government.


• The project needs to take small steps that show measurable benefits and expand from there.

• The people doing education/outreach need to have training/expertise in it. All too often it is done by


behaviour.

• It is important to be proactive when addressing IAS.

• More money is needed in the project budget to attract really good consultants.

• Transparency in project participation is very important. It helps get people on board.

• Broad, inclusive working groups help with ensuring overall interest and representation in the project,


• Linkages among Ministries/agencies are critically important. Cross-cutting working groups help, but


• Be realistic about personal/agency limitations. Projects need to be scaled to context (capacity) and


Capacity Building

• *Whatever is generated from this GEF project needs to be shared throughout the region.

• Work on pests and diseases needs to be seen as a subset of the IAS umbrella.

• Need to be careful not to communicate conflicting messages to stakeholders.

• A consultative process needs to happen frequently – bringing groups together to share ideas and build

capacity.

• CABI and other technical groups need to be more helpful “on-the-ground.”

• There is a need for far better feasibility studies and baseline information to inform the projects and


• Build alliances via attending various international and regional fora – provides benefits for technical


• Build national capacity via training in scientific and technical issues.

• International partners are important for technical support of the project and general capacity building.

• Public education/outreach programmes need to be launched early in a project in order to build


• The co-finance reporting distracts from implementation. However, capacity-building of a business-like

approach to project management can alleviate this problem.

• Public consultation processes are more effective at building capacity than emails and reports.

• Be more selective about professional development for temporary staff. Invest in people with long-term

potential.

Pilot Projects

• *Stakeholders are often unaware of the IAS and thus not aware of how than can contribute to the issue


• *Need better focus in the projects of what can be practically achieved. This should be a priority.

• *Contingency plans needed to be developed for the pilot projects early on.

• Ensure that all the necessary information is collected about a site before going out to sample.

• Be prepared for any scenario – things don’t always go as planned. Project components may take longer

than anticipated.

• Top down approaches to eradication won’t work. The values of local people need to be carefully



• You need to “throw everything at it” when it comes to eradication/controlling an IAS.


• Multi-stakeholder partnerships serve to advance project objectives. Consult with as many stakeholders



when working with stakeholders and have the flexibility to explain things in terms they will

understand.

• Hotels have proven to be good partners in the lionfish project. (Jamaica)

• Lionfish abundances seem to be lower than expected at some sites (near shore and some reef sites); it


removals. (Bahamas)

Sustainability

• *Sustainability planning needs far greater emphasis and immediate attention.

5. What is it hoped that the project ultimately achieves?

Region Wide Capacity/Strategies

• *Effective/implemented regional strategy and action plan – concrete projects and policy initiatives.

Must be accepted by the governments. Needs to have real, measurable impact “on-the-ground.”

• *Foundational data capacity to inform work in the region.

• *Linkages among government Ministries/agencies and among countries within the region.

• *National level strategies and action plans are established throughout the partner countries, and

eventually the region.

• *Far greater knowledge and capacity for prevention.

• People trained who know the issues and can make effective decision/actions.

• Stakeholders well educated on the issue and actively engaged in efforts to address it.

• Increased buy-in for environmental IAS from the Caribbean Invasive Species Working Group.

(CISWG)

• Practical examples (e.g., lionfish story) used throughout the Caribbean to raise awareness – needs to

include plants and animals in all ecosystems.

• We need to achieve a series of workshops, radio programmes, field guides etc. for each country that

will have lost lasting impact. The focus should be on the most devastating IAS as “poster children” for

the broader issue.

• Control (legislatively and otherwise) of the pet trade.

Pilot Projects

• Concreted actions that have been tested/implemented by the project can be proposed for the entire

region.

• Pilot projects can be replicated their successes in other locations as relevant.

• Regional analysis and effective efforts at invasive alien species control.

Sustainability

• *Initiative sustainability – a long-term presence in the region in terms of issue and capacity to address

it.

• Establishment of a recognized body (cabinet level?) to continue the work.

• An effective and well-populated website for indefinite use.

Visibility

• *Invasive alien species becomes a high profile issue throughout the region that is well integrated cross

sectors and into law/policy.


• Far greater awareness of the programme and a better picture of the problem from a broad perspective.

National Level The Bahamas

• *Increased public awareness, especially of the lionfish issue (including dangers).

• Population reduction of the lionfish.

• Capacity built to monitor, study, and remove lionfish.

• Incorporation of the lionfish into the local diets.

• Encourage and facilitate policy reform to effectively address current and future IAS issues within the

region.

• Increase institutional capacity to address IAS.

• Create and strengthen linkages between agencies/partner organizations.

• Train and empower locals to address IAS and IAS related issues.

• The lionfish project will be used to inform other countries on the effectiveness of lionfish removal and

protocols will be developed for such exercises.

• Updating of the national invasive species policy.


• A work plan and budget for implementation of the National Invasive Alien Species Strategies.

• A training programme to build national capacities on IAS management.

• A public that is well-informed on IAS issues.

• A standard for response to the IAS issues.

• Memorandum of Understanding for all involved partners so that future cooperation is mutually agreed

to and forward the conservation goals.

• Sustainable funding and capacity standards.

• Creation of important tools to deal with IAS, e.g., National Invasive Species Strategy.

• The eradication processes in both pilot sites could be a model for future project implementation.

Jamaica

• National strategy on IAS and IAS component for the NBSAP developed.

• A strong focus on both marine and terrestrial issues to minimize the impact of IAS island-wide.

• Significant improvement in awareness and action for preventing and mitigating the impacts of Marine

IAS.

• Increased coordination and awareness about the agencies that deal with importation permits.

• Increased awareness about IAS and the impact on our ecosystems and economy.

• Eradication of Melaleuca and control of Alpinia, and rehabilitation of swamp forest.

• Secure – to the best of human ability – the survival of the Jamaican iguana.

Saint Lucia

• A programme to ensure that persons who transit to Saint Lucia re made of aware of the responsibility

of vessels to meet international standards.

• Establishment of a legislative framework to enforce applicable laws (carrot and stick approach).

• People are sufficiently educated about the lionfish and the strategy to overfish it.

• Four off-shore islands remain free of IAS.

• Removal of recently introduced iguana and security of endemic iguana likely.

Trinidad and Tobago

• Development of a fully funded and adequately staffed national coordinating unit to continue the work.


• Increase in awareness and knowledge of the national public about invasive alien species and their

impacts.

• IAS issue incorporated into the K-12 school curriculum.

• Red palm mite project: Baseline sampling is completed, the project obtains enough political clout and

money to implement the biocontrol pathogens for red palm mite, varietal selections of palms from

other countries are identified that are more resistant to the red palm mite, lab studies on resilience and

potential natural enemies (including time lapse studies) are completed.

• The ecological status of Perna viridis will be determined and the economic impact of fouling

organisms can be conveyed to the industrial firms.

• Implement an effective and lasting management and control plan for dealing with marine invasives.

Including the implementation of ideas from the lionfish workshop.

• A consultant should have been hired to develop a comprehensive marine public awareness campaign

with clearly outlined objectives.

6. What challenges are anticipated for the second half of the project?

Regional Wide Administration

• *Continued turn-over in staff and changes in government.

• *Getting countries to formalize their IAS programmes so that they persist after the project.

• *Inability to show real impact of the project “on-the-ground.” Limited “on-the-ground” action/success

could lead to stakeholder disinterest.

• *Lack of institutional capacity to integrate the invasive alien species issue across sectors and into

law/policy.

• *Failure to give enough priority/attention to establishing means to continue dialogue/projects after

GEF funding ends.

• *Lack of focused/proactive effort to maintain close collaboration with other initiatives and projects

dealing with invasive alien species issues throughout the Caribbean.

• *Potential failure to have the regional strategy and action plan approved, broadcast and implemented.

This requires proactive “lobbying” and good, flexible communication.

• *Participants not well informed enough about the various aspects of the project overall – leading to

gaps and inconsistencies. More workshops and opportunities for one-one interaction are needed.

• *Not enough proactive support from CABI.

• *The substantial amount of time required for reporting, especially co-financing. Continued issues with

co-financing – this will be exacerbated if the international financial crisis deepens.

• *Inability to maintain the attention span of officers/Ministries, especially if there aren’t some concrete

products that demonstrate a substantial financial gain.

• Delay or non-adoption of the regional strategy and action plan.

• Transition of leadership for various project elements (needed for CIASNET now), especially national

coordinators.

• Convincing people to spend the financial resources necessary to solve the problems.

Law and Policy

• *Failure to enact legislation that will provide long-term support to effectively address the IAS issue.

• Getting people to learn and respect new laws and policies to limit the spread and impact of IAS.

• Continued difficulty in securing all of the borders in an island context.

Pilot Projects

• *Getting countries to fully implement the pilot projects on time and budget.


• Inability to effectively address the conflicts between commercial value and environmental protection.

• Failure to fully implement local pilot projects – which can only be achieved through detailed and

realistic planning, which depends on strategic assessment and adaptive management.

• Success the pilot projects – it is not clear how success is going to be defined for all of these projects

over the remaining two years.


• Continued challenges associated with capacity for the lionfish pilot project. However, four members of

the team are now certified to conduct training, and additional people might become certified.

• Continued challenges with a reliable boat support for Andros operations.

• Keeping momentum going can be hard. Lionfish have been found to have Cigatera in other countries

and this could hinder progress made.

• Some delays in reporting likely due to delays in getting information from busy project collaborators.


• A work plan must be developed with the engagement of the National Committee and activities

appropriately delegated to each member.

• Funding and continued partner involvement as all partners are currently stretched fo staff time and

running various projects.

• The changes in the project leadership will continue to be an issue and needs to be mitigated by

allowing for contractual agreements or possible direct funding to dedicate an employee to the project

as opposed to using part of an employee’s time for this while they have other responsibilities.

• Bureaucratic limits on time, planning, distribution of funds, and stakeholder engagement.

Jamaica

• Continued potential lack of needed manpower.

• The emphasis on training Customs agents and giving them identification resources etc. may not get

enough attention.

• May have challenges getting authority/permission to do the work on the Goat Islands. There are

substantial political hurtles to address.

• If there are further equipment delays in the Black River project, it could be very difficult to achieve the

desired results by the time the GEF project closes.

Saint Lucia

• Inadequate funding for the iguana project (e.g., for dogs).

Trinidad and Tobago

• *Not enough proactive effort and thus not enough support to ID and implement a biocontrol agent for

red palm mite.

• Potential change in government. New government may not be as supportive.

• Choosing the right time to have a meeting with the Perma viridis stakeholder. And, some stakeholder

may have concerns about confidentiality.

• *Potential lack of cooperation from key industrial stakeholders in the marine sector.

7. What opportunities/resources etc. has the project not yet taken advantage of?

Region Wide Administration


• Explicit, strategic focus on communication/stakeholder involvement on a sustainable basis (it needs to

reach the level of HIV/AIDS campaign awareness).

• Thorough assessment of what already been accomplished in education/outreach that could be used

by the region as a whole, or specific countries.

Communication/Cooperation

• *Long-term sustainability to require substantial buy-in from the private sector. The project is not

currently doing enough to engage the private sector in a way that will help ensure project

continuity in just two year.

• *RARE provides a very good model for education/outreach and engaging stakeholders and could

to be applied in many of the pilot projects.

• *The tourism industry is critically important as an IAS pathway to the islands and has not been

adequately engaged. Needs major focus.

• *There are more people at the local level who could become engaged. Emphasis should be placed

on bringing local people into the project and training them. Using Peace Corps volunteers etc. is of

little value when they leave unless they have trained locals.

• Engaging students in the university system. There are many students looking for projects.

• Use of individual species to teach broader invasive alien species issue (there are many good

“stories” besides the lionfish that are not being transmitted).

• Engaging additional NGOs that have technical expertise and could assist with project

sustainability.

• Island Conservation could provide more technical support than it has thus far been asked to

provide.

• Engaging CARDI more effectively.

• Better linkages with USDA Aphis Greater Caribbean Safe Guarding Initiative.

• At a recent CISWG meeting it was proposed that, in anticipation of the closing of the GEF project

in 2013, a larger meeting will be held than has been possible in recent years.

• There needs to be far more effort to start incorporating the other countries into a Caribbean-wide

strategy. Further consultation needs to start now, not in two years.

• Far greater emphasis on protected areas and engagement in organizations relevant to protected

areas work.

Funding

• Small grants that could link policy with “on-the-ground” action.

• Potential funding sources under the Caribbean Challenge, Trust Fund for Biodiversity, and Dept

Swaps for Environmental funding.

• The project is under utilizing its financial resources in some areas.

Scientific and Technical

• *Creation and linking of online information systems/databases. The website should be a portal for

this.

• Need to be inputting our data into IABIN etc. so that we are helping to build the capacity of

others.

• Offering more workshops and technical training to project partners at all levels, not just in IAS

information, but in project management skills and emerging technologies.

• CABI IAS Compendium. Each country needs a copy.

• Consider integrating better integrating the climate change issue into the projects – opens

opportunity for more political attention, financial support, etc.



• Increase advocacy efforts for policy and regulatory reform to aid lionfish management.

• Dispersal of seed grants for research in the areas of reproductive biology and invasion ecology of

lionfish.

• Establish linkages and update the Global Invasive Species Information Network (GISIN)

regularly.

• Develop and distribute additional pilot site interpretational materials and erect signage.

• Engage more community volunteers to assist with logistical support.


• Commercial diving groups and entities can provide lots of trainable divers for the research and

future capacity building.

• Public private partnerships to reduce overall costs for travel, supplies and media outreach.

• We could use electronic media more appropriately to communicate with the local community.

• The project should invest in getting more educational resources into schools and community

centers.

• The project needs to take more advantage of the available TNC/USAID funding for capacity

implementation.

• An agreement is needed with the Ministry of the Environment to develop an effective work plan

for the National Committee.

Jamaica

• Expand our engagement of the police. It has started, but we need to focus on inspiring and training

the police force to work with us.

Saint Lucia

• We need to develop an education campaign based on the model RARE developed for our endemic

parrot.

Trinidad

• Engagement of Trinidad and Tobago Field Naturalist Club and Council of Presidents for the

Environment (COPE).

• Linkage with the National Biodiversity Assessment.

• Linkages to and active engagement with the relevant national policies that exist and/or are in

progress (e.g., national Forest Policy, Protected Areas Policy, Wildlife Policy).

• Relationship building/information exchange with other organisations working on red palm mite

(esp. natural enemy experience, genetic resources for breeding resistance).

• Need to use available financial resources under the project.

• The Perna viridis project has yet to use a multi-media outreach approach.

8. Other observations/comments?

General Comments

• The group bonding as gone well. People are working very hard.

• Kristin McLaughlin’s attentive level of engagement has been very helpful.

• For the Cuba meeting – need to start thinking about: reassess budgets, resetting priorities,

CIASNET revision and long-term vision, sustainability – funding, national coordinator positions,

etc.


• The GEF grant has provided a good opportunity for researchers and administrators to learn how to

work with this type of agency.

• National public service organizations are better prepared to implement long term programmemes

rather than short term projects.

• Prior direct connection with Bob has been key to engagement of the project. Wouldn’t know about

it otherwise.

Specific Needs Identified

• *Need some changes in project direction – toward prevention: baseline surveys, pathway analysis,

risk analysis etc.

• *Partners need far more information on what is happening with the project, proactively.

• *Need to get the right stakeholders more involved – broaden the reach and people who make

decisions.

• *The CIANET website is not supporting the project well. It is not attractive and difficult to work

with. It is rather unpopulated. It needs to be redone and managed by people who have an expertise

in outreach/education/social marketing. This should be a jewel of the project, and serve as a very

functional clearinghouse mechanism. This needs to be addressed at the meeting in Cuba as a

priority. Funding for CIASNET needs to be long-term and include domain protected sites for

dialogue.

• *The pet trade pathway needs urgent and considerable attention (including spay/neuter

programmes for feral cats). Need lists of species not wanted in the trade.

• *Need to overcome the accessibility issues in some of the pilot projects.

• *We need to make sure that we are training people to sustain the project(s) long-term.

• *The public outreach programme needs a far more effective and broader reach.

• Regional strategy and action plan would benefit from the addition of complementary information,

such as lists of invasive alien species for the Caribbean and local contacts (experts).

• Need large-scale regional workshop to get beyond individual portfolios and geographic

boundaries.

• Better access to literature is needed.

• Need more people trained in economic analysis and statistics.

• Customs officers need identification tools, training for inspection procedures at ports of entry,

videos and signage at ports of entry.

• Severe penalties need to be established for people that break the importation and other laws


Annex 10: National Comments on Project Achievements

THE BAHAMAS: Questions for National-Level Response Date: 1 December 2011 Name and email address of person responding: Lakeshia Anderson, [email protected] Outcome 1

1. How was the National Steering Committee designed, who sits on it, and how often does it meet? Note:

if there are subgroups to the NSC, please provide information on these as well.

Target met. The NSC was selected based on the existence of a standing committee, The Biodiversity Committee, responsible for identifying invasive species and making recommendations for their management. The committee consists of representative from Governmental and Non-Government Organizations and private entities, that has initiatives related to IAS under there purview; The Department of Marine Resources, The Bahamas Environment Science and Technology (BEST) Commission; The Bahamas National Trust, The Nature Conservancy - Northern Caribbean Programmeme, Bahamas Reef Environment Educational Foundation (BREEF), Department of Agriculture and Dolphin Encounters. The NSC has agreed not to formulate sub-groups considering the key agencies and representatives are comprised of a small group of individuals within the existing committee that would have to be engaged for IAS in general.

2. What is that status of the National Strategy? How has the development process been undertaken?

Who has been involved? What are the next steps/timeline? TARGET MET. The National Invasive Species

Strategy (NISS) was developed in 2003 under the mandate of the BEST Commission. One of the

components of the project aims to update the contents of the NISS to incorporate the risks of climate

change and associated IAS. A consultant was hired to facilitate the NISS update in which the process

entailed stakeholder interviews and consultation workshop with the guidance of DMR and BEST to engage

and incorporate input from twenty four (24) agencies (see NISS stakeholder listing and interview

summary). A draft NISS has been developed, but does not yet include the results of the stakeholder

consultation. The next steps include updating an existing draft Biosecurity Act to accompany the NISS for

adoption by Government, which will provide IAS legislation that would mandate the relevant agencies to

implement the NISS. A guide to invasive species in The Bahamas will also be generated through the NISS

development process geared towards guiding agencies to identify and properly remove or treat invasive

plants or animals when capable (timeline for completion Q3Y3). The final NISS is expected for

completion in Q2Y3)

Outcome 2

3. What has been your countries involvement in development of the Regional IAS Strategy? How will

this strategy influence your work at the national level? The Bahamas has been actively involved in the

Regional Consultations providing the baseline structure of the regional strategy, and the guiding principle

for the completion of the strategy. The Bahamas’ NPC has held the secretariat position for the Marine

Invasive Species Working Group, ensuring meetings are executed and documented, and compiling

documents to guide the development of the marine invasive species strategy. The Bahamas hosted the

final/3rd Regional Consultation to finalize the CIAS Strategy and the development of action plans for the

respective working groups and country plans to guide the development of IAS Legislation for adoption of

the regional strategy on the country level. The current CIAS Strategy although in its draft form, has been

reviewed to guide the update of the existing NISS. The Bahamas has participated in the Project Steering

Committees from inception, and is expected to attend the upcoming IPSC to guide the progress of the

overall project.


Outcome 3

4. What is the status of the Best Practice Guidelines on IAS Management? What challenges and

opportunities are you aware of? What is the timeline?

5. What has been your countries role in developing a regional lionfish control strategy? If your country

has a lionfish project, have the project findings been documented? (if so, please provide with your

response to these questions). The findings of the lionfish project have not been completed due to delays

in the execution of the experiment, however, results of the baseline surveys and site selections have all been

documented to date. The preliminary results for the experiment will be completed by 30 December, 2011

which was presented at the 64th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute (GCFI) Conference in November

2011 (see presentation from GCFI). Subsequent to the implementation of the project, NOAA, REEF and

SPAW has since initiated the development of a regional lionfish control strategy. The Bahamas has been

intimately involved in this process considering many efforts through research and control initiatives have

been engaged in country. The Bahamas’ National Lionfish Response Plan, removal techniques, control

efforts, lionfish legislation review (in draft) and the NISS have been reviewed for the development of the

regional strategy and The Bahamas Project Director has been identified as a reviewer for the strategy and

best practice guidelines.

Site visits have proven to be costly and logistically difficult considering the experimental sites are confined to marine habitats (coral reefs, mangroves etc.), some of which are off island or offshore. However, during a climate change (impacts on coral reefs) workshop sponsored by The Australian Government, participants conducted a site visit to identify the varying coral diseases and bleaching, utilizing a project experimental site in Andros.

6. What has been your countries role in the development of the website? Do you have recommendations

for improvement? (if yes, please provide here) Delay in meeting target; The Bahamas submits updates of

project activities/events, posters, photos, articles and other project related documents for posting to the

public or private domains of the regional website. With lack of a coordinated system and capacity to

maintain the project aspects of the website, these requests have not been adhered to. Local training for

building capacity amongst project representatives have been completed amongst several of the project

countries, including The Bahamas however, it has been difficult to formally structure a system that would

allow consistency in updating the website considering other constraints in executing the project. As with

the recommendations with the PMU, considering funds are available for website maintenance, an

individual should be tasked with updating the website through each country’s NPC to ensure the progress

of the country projects are captured for the duration of the project.

7. What has been your countries role in linking with GISP, GISIN, and IABIN? Given that these

programmes have closed or are going to be closed, what other linkages have you developed or do you

plan to develop? What has been your engagement with the invasive species Compendium (ISC)?

This target is delayed considering there have been implications of the GISP programme closures. No

actions have been taken to develop alternate options. This should be discussed amongst the Project

Management Unit with guidance from CABI. Any recommendations from the Mid-Term Review would be

much appreciative.

8. What has been your countries engagement in education/outreach? What stakeholders have you

engaged, in what way(s), and how were they selected? What products have been produced? (if not

already supplied to reviewer, please attach copies or provide urls) A baseline public awareness survey

was administered amongst approximately 1,100 persons throughout three (3) islands of which are pilot sites

for demonstration experiments, Eleuthera, Exuma and New Providence. However, the final report has not

been generated to capture the true sense of the level of awareness on environmental issues and the impacts


of lionfish and the invasion as a whole. The delay in the report is due to commitments by the executing

agency to fulfill its obligations in executing the experiment considering task team members have been

departed the environment field to the private sector.

Lionfish culinary demonstrations have been one of the major activities for education and outreach for the general public on the lionfish invasion and the impacts they pose. Approximately 10 lionfish demonstration have been conducted for the project through several means i.e. Expos, Food Shows, Seafood & Heritage Festivals, @ Fish landing sites etc. An educational programme was developed in conjunction with Dolphin Encounters, highlighting the top 5 invasive species in The Bahamas. The infamous “Sea Rangers” explores Blue Lagoon Island identifying 4 plant invasives, then expanding to the marine invasive – lionfish, in a 15 minute segment. The national television station, ZNS, is currently airing the programme as fillers, and will be available in four 3-4 minute PSAs for posting on the regional website and you tube for wider circulation by Q2Y3.

Outcome 4

9. What has your country done to address invasive species prevention? How effective has this been?

What lessons have been learned? This component does not apply to The Bahamas’ project.

Outcome 5

10. What has been your country undertaken in the context of invasive species control/eradication? How

effective has this been? What lessons have been learned? The project seeks to identify the most

successful removal frequency based on lionfish densities and fish community structures. As stated earlier,

the experimental arm of the project is delayed, and only preliminary results are not available at this time

which reflects baselines survey analysis. The delays have resulted from:

• Late signing of contract (2 months after project inception)

• Identification of an Experiment Coordinator (interview process)

• Design of experiment to ensure its practicality and feasibility with resources available and budget

• Training of lionfish task team (extensive training was required)

• Site selection – minimum of 25 sites surveyed per coral reef site to identify 12 – 14 sites.

• Inclement weather to execute fieldwork at 4 pilot islands (New Providence, Andros, Exuma &

Eleuthera).

Lionfish culinary demonstrations has also been modeled to facilitate control measures by promoting lionfish as a food source, thus enabling fishers to target lionfish more consistently to control their populations. Lionfish tournaments have also included culinary demonstrations to educate the general public on cleaning techniques for lionfish for personal consumption, while encouraging restaurants to itemize lionfish on their menus. These measures have been quite effective as it has proven to increase awareness of the existence of lionfish in The Bahamas, and their venomous nature which ideally makes them safe to handle once properly de-spined, and safe to eat. The Bahamas Marine Exporters Association has been collaborating with project partners in advertising the purchase of whole lionfish to sell on the seafood market, thus supplying lionfish fillets to 12 customers throughout the country. Lessons learned: it has now proven difficult to estimate lionfish populations around New Providence based on undocumented removals from increased fishing pressure and lionfish tournaments that has been conducted within the past 2 years. There is no statistical data that would accompany a success story on low lionfish densities around the island which once had substantially high populations of lionfish prior to active removals from the many initiatives that has been executed to date. The project team is now discussing the establishment of a system to track lionfish removals to determine what measures are making an impact on decreasing lionfish populations.

11. What work has your country done in order to protect sites of high conservation value from invasive

species? How effective has this been? What lessons have been learned? A management goal in the

National Lionfish Response Plan focuses on identifying high biodiversity areas for designation as protected


areas, in which management plans will address invasive species management through active removal and

monitoring techniques. This concept of implementing IAS plans.

There has been anecdotal evidence that points to marine invasive species being controlled naturally in marine protected areas due to larger predators found within the boundaries. This has been more of the focus on the lionfish invasion, in that larger seabasses are preying on lionfish. A recent paper has been circulated to address this theory, however, there is still doubt as to natural predators in The Bahamas considering very few are found in its native range. Observational studies in The Exuma Cays Land and Sea Park have seen low abundance of lionfish with a small biomass as seen throughout the archipelago outside of MPAs.

Output 6

12. What is the status of the project offices, Project Plan, and reporting system? What challenges have

you encountered? If you have suggestions for improvement, please provide them. The project office have

been established at The Department of Marine Resources, with management equipment purchased to

effectively manage the project. A reporting and accounting system has been developed and being

implemented, with setbacks affiliated with accessing project funds through another agency considering the

executing agency was not equipped with a proper bank account to received GEF Funds. As of recent, an

account has been established to avoid future setbacks in implementing project activities based on funding

issues.

13. What is the status of the M & E Plan? How many audits have been completed? There have been at

least 2 audits completed to date. Monthly and quarterly reports are submitted to facilitate project

monitoring for all components of the project.


THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Questions for National-Level Response Date: 24 October 2011 Name and email address of person responding: Carlos Rijo Güílamo; [email protected] Outcome 1

1. How was the National Steering Committee designed, how sits on it, and how often does it meet? Note:


In the Dominican Republic the NSC was established as National Committee of Invasive Species, it was set by Resolution of the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources dated February 18, 2010. In the committee sits Governmental Agencies, NGOs and Academics institutions. The Committee meets once quarterly.


Who has been involved? What are the next steps/timeline?

At the date, the National Invasive Species Strategy is already finalize and the next steps are the promotion and prepare a semitechnical version for the general public and also the print for the policy makers and relevant stakeholders

Outcome 2


this strategy influence your work at the national level?

During the development of the regional strategy our country work in the workshops held in Saint Lucia and Bahamas and the main involvement that we had have was in the terrestrial ecosystem task force. On the discussion of the working group these action had no particular influence in our work, but was an important reference for the design of our methodologies and for incorporate the local community in the work of eradication of the invasive species.

Outcome 3



At the present time we are preparing a booklet for general public and for elementary school near the pilot sites. The documents were planned to be ready on August, but some delay because part of the staff working group have another task inside the Ministry do not permit to have it prepared on time. Now we are reviewing the final document to incorporate image to print and delivery to implement. Our plan include the preparation of data sheet of the more problematic invasive species in the Dominican Republic, emphasizing on the most common on between the general public (i. e. Plants, as neem, Leucaena, Casuarina, Mongoose).



response to these questions).

Our country have not lionfish project, but under the Ministry programme of invasive species we have developed some strategies action to control the species involving some NGO as Reef Scheck and


Fundemar, for teach fisheries how to capture the lionfish. Also the Ministry directly promotes the consumption of lionfish, preparing meeting for to taste some dishes which are prepared with lionfish.


for improvement? (if yes, please provide here).

Our contribution was only by sending documents to public on the web and minor comments during the CIASnet development.




The linking that our country has links to those sites developed before this project with an initiative of Inter American Biological Information Network.



already supplied to reviewer, please attach copies or provide urls)

The Education plan have been developing by the use of training short course as the imparted by Grupo Ecológico Conservación the Isla form Mexico last February. We also have made some arrangement for publication news at the newspaper and prepared brochure. The National Coordinator have participated on TV programme to explain to people what invasive species are and what kind of threats they are representing for the biological diversity. In the Caribbean Food Crop Society 46th meeting held in Boca Chica on July 2010 we have participated with a poster to promote the project. We also have collaborated with the Santo Domingo, D. N. authorities on the preparation of a brochure for the general public on invasive plants. Currently the National Coordinator is advising a degree work for diagnosis the presence of invasive plants at the municipality of Santo Domingo Este in Santo Domingo province. The main purpose of this thesis is to give a list of the identified invasive plants in the urban part of Santo Domingo Este, and make recommendation for mange them. Also there is another idea of integrate the invasive species topic in the academic discussion on the undergraduates students of the Universidad Nacional Evangelica.

Outcome 4


What lessons have been learned?

In the present the Dominican Republic has incorporates at the Customs a convention that set the Green Customs initiative for the Dominican Port and Airports. It was sign on October 4th among the Customs Directorate and the Environment Minister. The main goal of the green customs initiative is to surveillance the introduction of species that could turn into invasive. The legal toll for regulates the entrance of species invasive or potentially invasive is the Article 144 of the General Low of Environment. This article forbids the entrance to the county of species that “could threat the native species and could be harmful for the environment”. On the other hand the Regulation and Control Department from the Viceministry of Protected Areas and Wildlife, in the Ministry of Environment has the responsibility of control the entrancing of life organism of


species under the CITES Convention, thus the intentional introduction of alien species require a risk analysis, and the invasive or potentially invasive species would be detected on time.

Outcome 5


effective has this been? What lessons have been learned?

Currently we are in the process of start the eradication, after a long discussion and meetings with the different stakeholders and the National Steering Committee. Finally all the key stakeholders are agreeing with the eradication process. So the donkeys will be keep alive, removed from Cabritos and transported to the main land. If we need to talk about some learned lesson, the most important one that we have learned is related with the general public communication and the involvement of the local authorities in the process. It was very important to give the sure that all the community would be agree with the methodology to be implemented undergoing the eradication process. Even when in the beginning people practically have not known what invasive species are, at the end they have made they own proposals, given their ideas of how the invasive plants and animals could be controlled and managed.


species? How effective has this been? What lessons have been learned?

Both pilot sites (Alto Velo and Cabritos) are sites of high conservation value and the activities to be undergone are the measures to protect these areas. At the present we can´t evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot’s project, because the eradication activities will start next November and the track and monitoring will give us the effectiveness of the eradication, and the ecological restoration of the ecosystems and habitats. Whatever we have planned to leave a permanent surveillance at these sites for avoid reinvasion. The surveillance includes a reinforcement of the knowledge on Biodiversity and Invasive Species and also an awareness programme for park rangers and general public.

Output 6 12. What is the status of the project offices, Project Plan, and reporting system? What challenges have

you encountered? If you have suggestions for improvement, please provide them.

The offices of the project have successful installed in 2010 and the project plan prepared for each year (year one, year two and the year three plan is under preparation). The main challenges for me and for the field activities development is the related with the accounting system, because it is necessary to have the previous approval from CABI for disbursement and then the approval of the Vice Minister of Protected Area and is a high bureaucracy procedures.

13. What is the status of the M & E Plan? How many audits have been completed?

At the present only the CABI audits have been completed. It was made with the supporting documents sent by us from Dominican Republic, but none auditors have been at the Ministry to see the document and supervise the expenditure of the money.


JAMAICA: Questions for National-Level Response Date: 21 November 2011 Name and email address of person responding: Nelsa English-Johnson [email protected] Outcome 1



Response: The National Steering Committee (NISS) was formed from the National Invasive Alien Species Working Group (IASWG) with the assistance of the Environmental Protection Division of NEPA. The NSC is a multi-sectorial body comprising of representatives from the Government of Jamaica who have a vested interest in IAS issues in Jamaica. The group currently consists of 23 members representing 12 Government entities, 1 tertiary institution and 1 regional entity. These are: The NSC is constituted of the following entities:

• Office of the Prime Minister, Environment Management Sub-division (rep. GEF Focal Point)

• Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries o Forestry Department o Bodles Research Centre o Veterinary Services Division o Fisheries Division

• Caribbean Agriculture Research & Development Institute

• Ministry of Finance and the Public Service

• Institute of Jamaica, IABIN Focal Point • Jamaica Customs Department

• CITES, Scientific Authority • Ministry of Health

• Urban Development Corporation • Jamaica Customs Department

• National Environment & Planning Agency o Chief Executive Officer’s Office o Project’s Planning and Monitoring Branch o Ecosystems Management Branch o Protected Areas Branch o Public Education and Corporate

Communication Branch o Conservation and Protection Division o Environmental Management Sub-division

• University of the West Indies, Mona o Department of Life Sciences o Centre for Marine Sciences

The National Steering Committee convened its first meeting on March 26, 2010. The first meeting saw the invitees being introduced to the Project, its objectives and planned activities. The group was also made aware of the roles and responsibilities of the NSC. The decision was taken that the group would have quarterly meetings convened on the 2nd Tuesday of the last month of each quarter. As such the committee has had 7 quarterly meeting to date and 1 special meeting. See final contact list for NSC attached.



Response: A draft National Invasive Species Strategy (NISS) was developed during the Project Preparation phase of the Project. The decision was made by the NSC to delay the finalization of the Draft NISS until the Regional IAS Strategy was finalized. In the interim the Terms of Reference (TOR) for the hiring of the IAS Specialist to update the NISS are being developed. Now that the Regional Strategy is almost complete the position for the IAS Specialist to update the NISS will be advertised in mid to end November for the person to begin in December 2011. Outcome 2




Response: Jamaica has been actively involved in the development of the Regional IAS Strategy. Involvement started at the 1st Regional Consultation held in Trinidad in June 2010. At this consultation the ecosystem based task teams were formed and TOR developed for each. Jamaica had representatives present for each ecosystem team. At the meeting Jamaica volunteered to take the lead on the development of the Marine and Freshwater IAS Components of the Regional Strategy. In addition we volunteered to act as the secretariat for the Freshwater IAS Task Force. Since then the respective components were drafted by the respective leads. The Freshwater IAS Component of the strategy was drafted through consultation with Freshwater experts in Jamaica, it was then shared with the members in the task team for comments and updating. Throughout the process Jamaica has actively participated in the updating and revision of the various versions of the strategy produced and participated in the 2 following consultations held in St. Lucia and Bahamas in October 2010 and March 2011 respectively The IASWG has been involved in the process as they were always asked to provide feedback on the various versions for sharing with CABI. Upon the production of the 5th and Final draft of the Regional Strategy National Consultations were held within Jamaica in June 2011 for the revision of the overall strategy and especially the 3 ecosystems components. The comments were compiled and submitted to CABI for consideration/inclusion.

Outcome 3



Response: As a part of the Project’s activities it was decided that a Mid-term Magazine be published highlighting work being done on various IAS in the Participating countries. Six (6) articles were submitted to CABI for inclusion in the Midterm IAS Magazine. The tittles are as follows:

o The Non-indigenous Suckermouth Catfish, Pterygoplichthys pardalis (Pisces: Loricariidae; Castelnau, 1855), in Jamaica by Aisha Jones and Eric Hyslop, UWI Mona, Dept. of Life Sciences

o The Rose-ringed Parakeet (Psittacula krameri): a new invader to the Jamaican Avifaunal landscape by Ricardo Miller, NEPA

o Established Invasives Among Us by Monique Curtis, NEPA o The Lionfish Invasion in Jamaica by Dr. Dayne Buddo, UWI, Mona-Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory o Building Knowledge Base for Management of and Public Awareness on IAS in Jamaica by Suzanne

Davis and Dionne Newell, Institute of Jamaica, Natural History Division. o Aliens Among Us-Quilted Melania Snail by Monique Curtis, NEPA

The best practice manual will be produced at the end of the project. Information is being collated and documented for the production of the manual.




Response: The principal investigator for Jamaica’s Lionfish Pilot is actively involved in the process of developing a regional Lionfish control strategy. Activities include:

o Visits to the NOAA Lionfish Research Centre in North Carolina to share experiences and develop

synergies on Lionfish research.

o Coauthored a book called “Strategies and practices for invasive lionfish control” with NOAA and other

regional Lionfish researchers.

o Sharing of the Lionfish Train-the-Trainer programmeme that was developed in Jamaica with other

Caribbean countries.

o Paper on Lionfish Pilot and regional marine IAS and findings to date presented at the Food Crop Society

Conference in Barbados in July 2011.


The Lionfish Pilot project findings are being documented. The information is being documented by the Discovery Bay Marine Lab who is the lead on the Lionfish Pilot in Jamaica. A National Lionfish Database has been developed however it is not yet live. The aim of the database is to be able to provide georeferenced information on Lionfish in Jamaica. Some parameters included in the database are: location, depth, length and weight, gut contents, behaviour and aggregation. Discussions have been held with CABI about hosting the Database on the CIAS Network once the country is ready to share the information.


for improvement? (if yes, please provide here)

Response: A web designer was hired to develop the website. Countries were tasked with developing the content for the website. Jamaica’s profile was developed and submitted. The biggest issue with the website at present is the updating of the information and adding content. Information has been developed for Jamaica (articles, posters and brochures) but uploading is an issue. Training was held with the web developer to enable individual countries to post but this proved difficult. The suggestion moving forward is that the web developer be rehired to continue management and updating of the site. Some stakeholders are also of the view that the website is unattractive and needs to be reworked.




Response: Where possible linkages have been formed and information shared upon request. Information shared include:

o Participation in the GLISPA Helping Islands Adapt Workshop in Auckland New Zealand in April 2010.

o In April 2010, information on the status of the Lionfish in Jamaica was submitted to the Invasive Species

Specialist Group (ISSG) to be added to their GISN database.

o Data on the status of the Lionfish in Jamaica was shared with CABI for inclusion in the Caribbean IAS

Database.

o Assisted CABI in compiling an article entitled “The Quest for Effective Lionfish Kill in the Caribbean”.

o Participation in the Caribbean and Florida- Fire and Invasives Learning Network coordinated through the

TNC. Jamaica has attended all the meetings to date and shared information on the status of the Project to

date. We’ve also participated in the call in webinars.




Response: Public education and awareness is acknowledged as a vital aspect of the project. It was decided that a two pronged approach would be taken to increasing the awareness on Jamaican on IAS related issues. A general public education campaign which targets all Jamaican with the aim of increasing awareness of IAS in general and their impact on the country’s biodiversity and economy. This is supplemented by a more focused campaign targeting residents in areas where pilots are present as well as for the general public highlighting the target species of the project.

General Public Awareness Campaign Baseline Surveys

o Baseline survey has been completed in the Black River Area and draft of final report completed. Survey was conducted in collaboration with NEPA’s Ecosystems Monitoring Branch.

o Process of engaging consultant to complete the Baseline survey for the other 2 pilots (Lionfish and Iguana) has been initiated.


Publications o The project has written articles for publication in the Aliens of Xamayca Newsletter. To date the project

has had a presence in the last 3 publications of the quarterly Newsletter.

o “One Billion Acts of Green-Securing Jamaica’s Biodiversity Against Invasive Species” article published in commemoration of Earth Day in the Daily Gleaner newspaper on 29 April 2011

o “Forests and Biodiversity- Securing Jamaica’s Swamp Forest against Invasive Species”- article published in commemoration of International Day of Biological Diversity in the Daily Gleaner on 20 May 2011

o “Let’s Eat It to Beat It- Managing the Lionfish Threat in Jamaica” article published in the Daily Observer Environment Watch on 27 July 2011

Indirect Publications o “Jamaica to benefit form Multi-Million Dollar project to Reduce Threat of invasive Species” published on

Jamaica Information Service on 31 October 2009. http://www.jis.gov.jm/news/opm-news/21716-officePM-jamaica-to-benefit-from-multi-million-dollar-project-to-reduce-threat-of

o Save the industry, eat up the lionfish Tufton urges Jamaicans” published in Jamaica Observer on 04 August 2010. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/Save-the-industry--eat-up-the-lionfish--Tufton-urges-J-cans_7843267

o “Jamaica- Invasive Lionfish Go From Predator to Prey”- written by Zadie Neufville published Inter Press Service on 12 October 2010. http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=53140

o “NEPA takes fight to alien invaders”- written by Phillip Hamilton published in The Gleaner on 27 October 2010. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20101027/lead/lead92.html

o “We’ll help you eat them” – written by Rumeal Peters published in Jamaica Observer on 10 July 2011. http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/magazines/career/-We-ll-help-you-eat-them-_9165915

o “Alien invasive species pose a serious threat” – written by Christopher Serju, published in the Sunday Observer on 10 July 2011. http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110710/lead/lead9.html

o Ja fast-track efforts to deplete lionfish stock”- written by Christopher Serju published in the Sunday Gleaner 10 July 2011 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20110710/news/news4.html

o “Lionfish for Lent” – written by Michael Burke published in the Jamaica Observer on 10 March 2011 http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/VIDEO--Lionfish-FOR-Lent_8494683

o “A Quest for Effective Lionfish Kill in the Caribbean”- produced by CABI-CLA with input from Jamaica.

Expos and Exhibitions The project participated in the following activities:

o Misty Bliss Festival February 2010:- Display included posters and a project information sheet.

o World Environment Day Expo June 2010:- Display was mounted featuring brochures on IAS, posters and maps showing Jamaica’s most common IAS and where they are located.

o Denbigh Agricultural and Industrial Show July/August 2010:- Display included posters, brochures, a video on the Jamaican Iguana and a IAS crossword was administered in the Children’s Corner. The Lionfish display was a collaborative effort among the members of the Lionfish Sub-committee. The project booth had the Lionfish brochure then patrons were directed to the UWI booth to see the live display of the Lionfish; then to the Ministry of Agriculture-Fisheries Division and Food for the Poor Jamaica to see a live demonstration on safe handling followed by a tasting of Lionfish prepared by prominent Chef from the Culinary Federation of Jamaica.


o World Tourism Day Expo September 2010:- under the theme “Tourism and Biodiversity”. The display included brochures, posters and exhibit of marine animals and the Lionfish.

o Expo put on by the Parottee Citizens Association and Benevolent Society in St. Elizabeth October 2010:- Display included a general display on IAS and facilitated demonstrations on how to safely handle/prepare the lionfish. The Benevolent Society provided samples of patrons to taste.

o Participated in celebration/commemoration of World Wetlands Day at an Expo in the Black River Lower Morass Area on 02 February 2011. Project exhibit included posters and brochures on Project activities highlighting the work being done by the Project in the Black River Lower Morass through the Black River Pilot. Dr. Kurt McLaren Pilot Project Manager for the Black River also gave a presentation to attendees (schools, community groups and government agencies) on threatening IAS activity in the Black River Lower Morass and the research being conducted to mitigate the threats.

o Participated in Jamaica 4H Parish Achievement Day at Newell High School in St. Elizabeth on 02 March 2011. A booth was set up featuring posters and brochures on general IAS information, the Regional Project and the Lionfish Pilot. Display included videos on the Lionfish, live Lionfish display, and live demonstrations of the safe handling and preparation of Lionfish.

o Hosted an Expo in the Black River Area at the Black River Safari in commemoration of International Day on Biological Diversity on 19 May 2011. The aim of the expo was to highlight biodiversity within wetland ecosystems (The Black River Lower Morass) and highlight the impact the IAS had on these ecosystems. The Expo featured:

� Posters and brochures exhibiting the importance of wetland and forest biodiversity

� Posters, brochures and factsheets highlighting the threats of IAS to wetland ecosystems

� Presentations on the MTIASIC Project, The Black River Pilot, IAS work being done in the area by the National Irrigation Commission and the partnership between the project and the Social Development Commission.

� Outside radio broadcast between 2:30 – 5pm on Power 106 FM

o Lionfish Pilot led by the Research Assistant participated in the Red Cross Youth Rally. Participation included display of posters and brochures on the MTIASIC project and the Lionfish Pilot, live Lionfish exhibit, and live demonstrations of safe-handling and preparation of the Lionfish.

o The National Coordinator, Pilot Project Manager and Research Assistant collaborated with Rainforest Seafoods to participate in the Jamaica Observer Food Awards on 26 May 2011. The Project’s contribution included a live lionfish display, interactive live demonstrations of safe handling and preparation of Lionfish, posters and brochures. Rainforest Seafood provided the booth space, a Lionfish recipe, and cooked samples for patrons to taste.

o Project participated in Green Expo 2011 on 10-12 June 2011. The Project’s brochure and the fact sheet

developed on the Paperbark Tree and Wild Ginger in the Black River Lower Morass were displayed at the main booth. The Children’s exhibit included live specimens of the endangered Jamaican Iguana as well as videos and story telling on how to safely discard of pet fish without putting the environment at risk. The NPC and Admin Assistant volunteered all 3 days of the Expo. The Lionfish Pilot Research Assistant displayed the work of the Pilot including live Lionfish display, live demonstrations on safe handling and preparation of Lionfish, posters and brochures. The Lionfish exhibit was housed by the University of the West Indies.

o The Project was invited by the PECO Branch to participate in the 2011 staging of the Denbigh Agricultural and Industrial Show 30 July -01 August 2011. The Project did an extensive display which included: posters, brochures, flyers, live display of the invasive Red Claw Crayfish which is spreading in freshwater ecosystems within the Black River Area, live demonstrations of safe handling and preparation of Lionfish,


onsite cooking of and taste testing of the Lionfish (5 recipes: sweet and sour, escoveith, wine/beer battered, curry and Lionfish tea/soup) in partnership with the Brown’s Town Community College’s Hospitality Department. Puzzles, word search and mazes pertaining to IAS were also featured as a part of the children’s activities for Denbigh.

o Collaborated with NEPA’s Ecosystems Management Branch for International Coastal Cleanup Day (ICCD) activities in the Hellshire Bay Area. A booth display was set up onsite which featured:

� Brochures on IAS Project, the Lionfish Pilot and Lionfish Recipes

� Live demonstrations on safe handling and preparation of the Lionfish

� Sampling of Lionfish prepared in 4 different ways and Lionfish Soup

� There were over 300 volunteers present at the ICCD activities from schools, community groups, public and private sectors groups.

Creation of Printed Material o Project information sheet developed in October 2010.

o Regional project brochure composed by CABI edited by participating countries.

o Project Banner July 2011.

o Project Brochure developed in July 2011.

o Invasion Word Search developed in August 2011.

o Trap the Mongoose Maze developed in August 2011.

o Name that Invasive Alien Species developed in August 2011.

School based Activities o NPC made presentation at Portsmouth Primary in St. Catherine as a part of their Jamaica Day celebrations

on 25 January 2011. Presentation featured native plant biodiversity, highlighted introduced species and invasive alien species and the impact on biodiversity

Summer Camp The project participated in 4 Summer Camps put on by the Social Development Commission (SDC) in the Junction St. Elizabeth Area which is close to the location of the Black River Pilot site. Over 200 children aged 7-18 yrs from the communities of Potsdam, Queensbury, Brinkley and Red Bank participated in the camps over the 3 week period. Participants were exposed to information on biodiversity and the threat/impact of IAS with emphasis placed on the target species of the project for the Black River Pilot. Activities included IAS based presentations, crossword puzzles, word search puzzles, mazes and colouring for younger children. Radio Broadcasts

o Conducted radio interview on community based Roots FM on 06 May 2011. The hour long interview highlighted the objectives of the project, the achievements to date and shared with listeners their role in helping to protect our biodiversity from IAS.

o Gave an interview on an Outside Broadcast on Music 99 FM as a part of ICCD Activities. Whilst emphasis was placed on the Lionfish Pilot, all the other pilots and facets of the National Project were mentioned.

o The Project part sponsored the Hope Zoo and Royal Botanical Garden’s “Race for Hope” Fundraiser. As a part of the sponsorship package a PSA developed by the project was aired for 2 weeks (20 airings of a 30 sec ad) on Power 106 FM.

Presentations/Information sharing

o Presentation on the Project was made to the NEPA Board of Directors on 02 April 2011.

o Presentation on the Project was made to the Institute of Jamaica’s Board of Directors on 20 October 2010.


Lionfish Pilot A train-the-trainer programme for the safe handling of Lionfish from sea to plate was developed for the project by the UWI Mona’s Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory. The training targets representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, NEPA, Marine Park Officers, Dive Operators, Outreach Officers (various agencies) as well as strong environmental NGO groups. The training is facilitated in partnership with Nahkle Hado from Food for the Poor. The hands on training exposed learners to the following:

o Characteristics of Marine IAS with Case Studies

o Description of Lionfish

o Using a Sling, Speargun, pole spear

o Hands-on Training in Active Capture in-water

o Measuring, dissection of gut contents, data entry

o Preparation and handling for cooking

o Cooking

o Tasting

This covers information on biology and behavior of the invasive lionfish; the history, and predicted future of the invasion; potential impacts on the environment, fisheries and tourism; venemology, reactions and how to treat stings and methods of control and management. To date the training programmeme has been administered directly to over 20 persons from Government and Environmental NGO groups. These trainers have since gone on to train over 30 individuals. The Lionfish outreach programmeme also targets fisherfolk (Aloha, Manchioneal, Buff Bay, Port Antonio, Prospect, Pedro Cays Fishing Villages), hotel staff (kitchen, nurses and water sport) from Super Clubs, Runaway Bay HEART Hotel, Half Moon Hotel, Sandals and Tourism stakeholders. Persons visiting the Marine IAS Lab are also educated on the Lionfish. Records have shown that since February 2011, 2,962 persons have been trained. A preliminary video has also been developed and is used to enhance training. Television Broadcasts

o A 2 part feature on the Lionfish Pilot Project was conducted and aired on Television Jamaica (TVJ) during

the prime time news in July 2010.

o Dr. Buddo participated in a demonstration of the safe handling and preparation of the Lionfish on TVJ’s

morning show Smile Jamaica in November 2010

Printed Material

o Lionfish Brochure developed by the Lionfish Sub-committee in July 2010.

o National Lionfish Pilot Brochure developed in June 2011.

o Lionfish Recipes Brochure developed in June 2011 by the Brown’s Town Community College on behalf of

the project.

o “Let’s Eat It To Beat It” Poster developed in July 2011.

o Medical Response for Treating Lionfish Stings developed by Dr. Thandi Wedderburn-Buddo for the

Project in June 2011.


Audiovisual

o Lionfish Training Video developed by the Discovery Bay Marine Lab in July 2011.

Presentations/Information Sharing

o Lionfish Pilot Project Manager gave presentation on the National Lionfish Pilot to Jamaica’s Oceans

Council on 12 January 2011.

o The Lionfish Pilot Project Manager and Research Assistant gave a presentation on the National Lionfish

Pilot during celebrations of World Oceans Day on 08 June 2011 hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

and Foreign Trade.

Black River Pilot Printed Materials

o Factsheet-Invasive Alien Species in the Black River Lower Morass developed in May 2011.

Radio Broadcasts


o Conducted radio interview on Power 106 FM on 02 February 2011. The interview focused on the IAS

mitigating activities in the Black River Lower Morass.

o Conducted radio interview on Manchester based Vybz FM on 19 May 2011 to promote the International

Biodiversity Day Expo held at the Black River Safari on the same day highlighting the target IAS species

in the Black River Lower Morass.

Outcome 4 9. What has your country done to address invasive species prevention? How effective has this been? What

lessons have been learned?

Jamaica is not undertaking any pilots in support of this activity however there are national initiatives in place to safeguard against introductions of new IAS. The Veterinary Services and Plant Quarantine Divisions are tasked with evaluating all applications for permits to introduce species into the country. The Plant Quarantine Division has surveys conducted on an as needed basis; eg Citrus Greening survey currently being done, Pink Mealy Bug survey done in the past. The Veterinary Services Division has implemented surveillance programmeme for specific diseases as well as to identify and capture animals that are illegally imported. Surveillance of new diseases is revised as necessary.

Outcome 5 10. What has been your country undertaken in the context of invasive species control/eradication? How


Response: Jamaica is currently undertaking 3 pilots, one which targets IAS affecting each of the 3 ecosystems. The pilots address the management and control and the Pterois volitans and Pterois miles (Lionfish) in Jamaica; monitoring and selective eradication of vertebrate predators to protect the endemic/endangered Cyclura collie (Jamaican Iguana) in the Portland Bight Protected Area and the control and management of the Melaleuca

quinquenervia (Paper Bark Tree) and Alpinia allughas (Wild Ginger) in the Black River Lower Morass. The University of the West Indies, Mona through the Centre for Marine Sciences-Discovery Bay Marine Lab and the Department of Life Sciences manages the implementation of Jamaica’s Pilots. Iguana Pilot The Jamaican iguana is listed as Critically Endangered in the most recent IUCN Red List, and as an Appendix 1 Species under the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the species is also considered to be Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (United States Fish & Wildlife Service). Nationally, the species is protected under the Wild Life Protection Act (NRCA, Government of Jamaica) and on Schedule I of the Endangered Species (Protection, Conservation and Regulation of Trade) Act. Invasive alien species represent the greatest threat to the Iguana where its habitat is still in prime condition. The target IAS identified for the pilot are goats, small Indian mongoose, feral pigs, and European rats. The Jamaica Iguana Recovery Group notably through the work of the UWI Mona, Department of Life Sciences’ Dr. Byron Wilson has been leading the recovery effort. Through the assistance of the Project work continues in the following areas: Continuous trapping and removal of predators in core Iguana nesting site An invasive predator trapping grid is continuously operational in the core Iguana conservation zone. The grid consists of ~ 60 traps that are operational every day of the year and are checked and re-baited every 1-3 days. This trapping mechanism focuses primarily on the mongoose the greatest predator of the Jamaican Iguana. Snare trapping is also carried out in the area. Since the inception of the project’s support of the work of the Jamaica Iguana Recovery Group (JIRG) in June 2010 to September 2011, 107 mongoose, 14 feral pigs, and 2 feral cats have been caught and removed from the core Iguana conservation zone. Other IAS such as black rats and cane toads have also been removed from the conservation zone. Expansion of trapping grid


Initially the plan was to augment the existing trap loop with additional traps. The decision has now been taken to add a major new trail/trap system. Since June 2011 the JIRG has been training a new mongoose trapper who will assume the responsibility of conducting the additional trap checking required by the planned expansion. The new trapping loop has already been ground checked, and contact has been made with the Jamaica Defense Force for helicopter support, as we hope to enlist their help in transporting and deploying the traps to multiple, remote interior Hellshire Hills locations. Location of new nesting sites for Iguanas No new nesting areas were found during the period however; it is known that at least two areas on the ‘outskirts’ of the core iguana area currently harbour small numbers of adult iguanas. In conjunction with the expansion of the mongoose trapping grid, we hope to trap (or capture) females from these areas and outfit them with VHF transmitters prior to the nesting season. The explicit goal will be to determine where these animals deposit their eggs, and attempt to harvest either the eggs or hatchlings of these presumably ‘new’ wild animals. Monitoring of known nesting sites The last 2 years of activities confirm a quadrupling of the remnant breeding population in the past 20 years as 33 female iguanas observed to have deposited clutches in the main communal nesting areas in 2011. This compared to 8 when the programmeme started back in 1991. This is presumably due to the recovery efforts of the JIRG augmented by the project. Also noteworthy is the observation that roughly half of this breeding population consists of repatriated, headstarted individuals – which demonstrates the efficacy of the headstart technique. Another noteworthy observation was that of a female iguana digging out and destroying the eggs of a female who had deposited her eggs earlier. Together with a similar observation in 2010, this indicates that crowding is now an issue at the communal nesting sites, and that as a result, hatching success may have peaked. Accordingly, we are now in the process of constructing artificial nesting areas to absorb some of the overflow. Collection of Hatchlings Enclosures are erected around the communal nesting area in the 3rd week of August each year to protect emerging iguana hatchlings and to assist in collection and tagging of hatchlings. During the nesting season 28 (June 2010) and 33 (June 2011) females deposited eggs at the core monitored nesting areas. Over 70 hatchlings were recorded during the 2010 nesting season. For the 2011 season a total of 205 hatchlings were collected and processed; 43 of which were transported to the Hope Zoo for headstarting; the remainder were released at their site of capture. Hellshire Forest Regeneration As a part of the Hellshire forest structure and regeneration activities work has been done to establish and maintain permanent sample plots. The enumeration and identification of trees and seedlings in all sample plots began with a total of 5,000 individual trees/seedlings tagged, measured and recorded. Annual Pitfall Trap Survey All 64 assessment traps were opened on 8 February 2011 and checked daily until being closed on 16 March 2011. The traps were again reopened on opened on 27 March and checked daily until being closed for the season on 8 April. The 2011 season marked 15 consecutive years of the JIRG’s survey efforts. On capture, targeted species (e.g., most ground lizards) were measured (SVL), weighed, assigned a unique toe-clip combination, and released. Other reptiles and arthropods were enumerated and released. In addition to targeted native species, the presence of IAS were also recorded, especially cane toads, rats, and mice. These data will be used to assess changes in the populations of these non-native species, particularly in relation to on-going predator control activities. In all, several thousand records were generated and have now been entered into the master EXCEL file. Analyses of these data are underway, in conjunction with the Climate Change Group (Physics Department, UWI), and will provide novel information on potential changes in faunal abundance in light of the impacts of global climate change. Repatriation of Headstarted Iguanas back to the Hellshire Hills Seventeen (17) individuals were selected for repatriation back into Hellshire. Repatriation candidates were then transported to the Hellshire Hills and successfully released into Hellshire. All of the females (9) and males (4) were released at the Lower Nesting Site. Two (2) of the remaining males were released behind the beach at Manatee Bay,


and the remaining two (2) males were released on the trail to South Camp, in the vicinity of the ‘C2’ pitfall traps. The total number of headstarters repatriated back into Hellshire now stands at 155. Baseline and pre-eradication Surveys of Goat Islands In support of the baseline and pre-eradication surveys for the Goat Islands, a 4 day walking survey was conducted on the Great Goat Islands and 9 camera traps were deployed over a 43 day period. The camera traps captured over 1500 images which included 1,406 goats, 11 mongooses, 10 cats, 2 cane toads, 4 Anolis lizards and 21 bird species. No sign of non-target native species such as the iguana or hutias was noted during the survey or captured by the camera traps. Lionfish Pilot The implementation of the Lionfish Pilot is a collaborative effort which is lead by Dr. Dayne Buddo from the UWI Mona’s Discovery Bay Marine Lab (DBML). The project has assisted with the establishment of a Marine IAS lab at the DBML through which the pilot’s activities are coordinated. The major partners of the Pilot are: Portland Environment Protection Association (PEPA), Food for the Poor-Jamaica, Ministry of Agriculture-Fisheries Division, the Nature Conservancy, and Rainforest Seafoods. Other partners include: Jamaica Fishermen’s Co-op Union Ltd. Culinary Federation of Jamaica, Fisheries Advisory Board, Improving Jamaica’s Agricultural Productivity Project, the Ministry of Health, Jamaica Coral Reef Monitoring Network and local NGOs the project works towards increasing the country’s ability to manage the lionfish population within the Island. The Lionfish Pilot takes a research driven approach to formulate and implement response actions to manage and control the species in Jamaica. Island wide Distribution The island-wide distribution component is aimed at collecting baseline data which will assessment of the invasion and track the densities over a 24 month period. Monthly in-water surveys are conducted at select sites island-wide using transects. During the period 173 (60 m2 each) in water surveys were conducted at selected sites around the island including Discovery Bay, Bluefields, Montego Bay, Port Royal and Pedro Cays. During these surveys Lionfish specimens were collected and the biological parameters recorded. Parameters collected include: length, weight, gut contents, aggregation and behaviour. Location and depth are also recorded. A national lionfish database has been created to house the biological, ecological and distribution data gathered around the Island. The database will feature GIS maps showing Lionfish distribution and densities around the island. To date the database contains 463 datasets. Prey Preference The prey preference component represents a comprehensive assessment of the prefences at selected sites around the Island. This involved dissection of lionfish specimens collected and evaluation of the species and number of individuals consumed. To date 111 different preys have been identified in the stomach contents of the Lionfish. This includes species such as:

o Shrimps

o Crabs

o Parrotfishes

o Snappers

o Trumpetfishes

o Wrasses

o Damselfishes

Most of the species identified to date are economically important species within the fishing industry. Passive Capture Mechanism In-water pursuit of and removal of Lionfish is not a feasible, cost effective or sustainable method of control. The development of a low cost passive trapping mechanism which is highly effective and selective would prove a better


method of catching Lionfish. Anecdotal information provided by some Jamaican potfishers suggests that Lionfish has been found in local fish traps/pots. The project is currently verifying this anecdotal information. To date 100 pot retrievals and deployments have been done in tandem with fisherfolk in the Alloha Fishing Village in Discovery Bay St. Ann with the aim of identifying best bait type, soak time and pot design. Also d=being determined is the catch per unit effort. To date 21 dives have been assessed and uploaded from 5 locations. Development of Management Plan Socio-economic surveys have been conducted with a graduate student from UWI, St. Augustine. The target areas for the survey were: St. Ann, Trelawny, Montego Bay, Negril and St. Mary. Two hundred and forty five (245) surveys have been completed another 155 are still outstanding. The project is currently awaiting the results of the analysis.



Response: Activities in support of this pilot were differed until year 2 to facilitate additional research to develop a more thorough work plan for the Pilot. In the interim through the efforts of Dr. Kurt McLaren (Principal Researcher) of the UWI Mona’s Department of Life Sciences additional funding was leveraged to assist in the purchasing of equipment needed for the pilot. Official signoff was received in October 2011 for the commencement of the Pilot Project and signoff given by Jamaica’s NSC in February 2011. To date, 20, 60 x 20 m plots were established in four blocks of 10 plots (10 of which were established in 2006). We established 7 additional 20 x 20 m plots during the period April - August 2011. Three plots were established in a patch overrun with Alpinia, and four in a small patch completely surrounded by Alpinia. Additional plots will be established within the infected patch (3, 20 x 20 m) and this will be used for removal and rehabilitation experiments. Additionally, we a formal request to land owners seeking permission to establish plots in swamp forest patches located on their property in Burnt Savanna. We have so far received permission to establish plots in two of the three patches. Plot Assessments A total of 12,328 trees ≥ 2 cm DBH were tagged and measured within the 20, 60 x 20 plots (covering a total area of 2.4 hectares). A total of 24 species, 9 of which were identified to the level of the genus from 14 different families were recorded from the 20 plots. However, we were unable to identify 9 species. We are now exploring the use of DNA barcoding as a means of identifying the 9 unidentified species and to identify all trees to the level of the genus. All plots established before and after April 2011, have been assessed but the data is yet to be entered. A total of 5,953 seedlings of approximately 10 species have been sampled to date (3374 seedling from the first block and 2579 seedlings from the second block). Grias cauliflora dominated the seedling count in both blocks. We also collected hemispheric photographs, but they are yet to be analyzed. Output 6

12. What is the status of the project offices, Project Plan, and reporting system? What challenges have you encountered? If you have suggestions for improvement, please provide them.

Response: The Project Implementation Unit (PIU) has been established at NEPA and is fully functional. The equipping of the office with materials and equipment is an ongoing process. NEPA has an internal reporting system which includes the NC reporting to the Manager of the Project’s Planning and Monitoring Branch and the Director of Special Projects on a weekly basis. These three individuals are integrally informed in decision making at all levels for the Project. The PIU in Jamaica also reports to the Regional Project Manager on a monthly basis and more frequently as the need arises. Meetings are also had with the Regional Project Director on an as needed basis. The project fulfils its technical and financial reporting obligations in accordance with timelines laid out in the project document. The greatest challenge faced by the project was timeliness of financial reporting. Measures have since been put in place by NEPA to ensure early preparation of Project expenditure accounts.



Response: At the national level, NEPA’s Projects Planning and Monitoring Branch as well as the National Steering Committee for the project oversee and ensure that project work plans are implemented accordingly and project expenditure is within the budget. The NSC also ensures that high quality deliverables are produced by the project and any consultants it hires. The project also maintains the necessary financial records and documentation to ensure ease of access when required for auditing. At the Regional level the project maintains records and provides all the pertinent documentation as requested from CABI. Audits are conducted by firm in Trinidad. To date the project has successfully completed 2 audits.


SAINT LUCIA: Questions for National-Level Response Date: 21 October 2011 Name and email address of person responding: Ulrike Krauss, [email protected] Outcome 1



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment NSC operational and meeting regularly fully achieved Item ahead of schedule and close to

end-project target (EPT)

PSC composition and operation Saint Lucia’s IAS Working Group (IASWG) acts as National Steering Committee (NSC) for the GEF project. The IASWG is a cross-sectoral ad hoc group that grew around the nuclear team from the MALFF (initially Agricultural Research and Biodiversity Unit, then also Forestry, Fisheries and the Veterinary & Livestock Division) and the Ministry of Physical Development and the Environment (initially Coastal Zone Management and GEF Focal Points, now also Sustainable Development, which also includes the Climate Change Unit), essentially during PPG and early FSP. Stakeholders were identified in a participatory manner during early meetings to include relevant Ministries, GOs, NGOs, sub-regional bodies and civil society. These were then invited to join; some obliged, some did not respond despite follow-up; none declined. The current composition is available by request. Active involvement varies widely. Some members are merely information recipients. Typical meetings have 12-20 active participants. Some agencies nominated more than one member to ensure institutional representation at each meeting/activity. Several other individuals have played or are playing important roles, or have been invited to do so but not officially included in the IASWG because the green light from their agency is pending. Up to mid term, the IASWG, in its function as PSC, has met seven times. Agendas and minutes have been supplied on the DVD: Component 6 outputs - Project Management & Planning\PSC Minutes Additionally, numerous technical meetings of relevant sub-groups have taken place largely in an ad hoc manner. Noteworthy working sub-groups were:

• NISS Consultants

• Aquatic subcommittee

• Lionfish taskforce

• Alien iguana control team

• Fire and invasive plants team

All these meetings have been listed in the technical reports (Reports\MTIASIC\Technical). Agreements were often informal, e.g. oral or e-mail summary; when minutes were prepared, these are filed under the relevant topic folder under Component 6 outputs - Project Management & Planning The NISS recommends the creation of a smaller and high-level IS entity (policy & decision-making focus) to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the NISS by the IASWG (technical focus), which should be maintained ad hoc, open-doored and flexible. While the detailed Roles & Responsibilities for the IS entity will be defined in the IS Act, an outline is given in the NISS and the following agencies will be invited to the IS decision-making entity:

• Biodiversity Unit


• Forestry Department

• Fisheries Department

• Quarantine Unit

• Veterinary Division (all MALFF)

• SLASPA

• Customs & Excise Dept.

• NEMO

• Environmental Health Office

• Ministry of Tourism

• Ministry of Sustainable Development & the Environment

• Solid Waste Management Authority

• up to three representatives from the private sector (annually rotating nomination, tbd when key

sectors have been better briefed on IAS)

• up to three representatives from NGOs/community groups (annually rotating nomination)



Outcome .2 Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Content of NISS developed and in draft fully achieved Item ahead of schedule: 1st of 3 EPTs

well under way

The content of the NISS (text and illustrations) has been finalized. NISS authors were:

• Vasantha Chase (Team leader)

• Marie Louise Felix (Aquatic Ecosystem Specialist; Change Agent)

• Guy Mathurin (Pathway Specialist)

• Lyndon John (Terrestrial Ecosystem Specialist)

• Gaspard Michael Andrew (Terrestrial Ecosystem Specialist)

• David Lewis (Invasive Plant and Fire Specialist)

• Ulrike Krauss (Invasive Species Specialist) The layout is currently receiving finishing touches. A non-technical summary targeting policy-makers, in form of a flyer, is in advanced draft – see DVD Component 1 outputs - National IS Strategy\NISS\Under review. Saint Lucia decided to have subject expert prepare separate baseline analyses in their field of expertise. These reports form a compendium that informed the NISS (see DVD Component 1 outputs - National IS Strategy\Baseline Analyses). Half way through the drafting, in January 2011, three public consultations were held before the NISS was finalized. The introduction and conclusions report are provided under Component 1 outputs - National IS Strategy\NISS. The advanced draft was reviewed by the IASWG and Floyd Homer (SusTrust, Trinidad). Best compromise of comments was incorporated into the current (final, IASWG-endorded) version. Future steps are:

• Cabinet presentation and hopefully endorsement of NISS (as soon as layout is finished and NISS & flyer

printed – year 3)

• the drafting of IS legislation and regulations (initiated; finish: year 3), hopefully subsequent enactment

(year 4).

• NISS implementation (initiated; CEPA implementation well on way)

3. What has been your country’s involvement in development of the Regional IAS Strategy? How will



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment PSC established & operational fully achieved Led by CABI

Regional working groups for environmental IAS established & operational

fully achieved Led by CABI

Regional strategies in preparation fully achieved Led by CABI

Saint Lucia’s role Saint Lucia participated in all regional consultations and was consistently represented in all three ecosystem groups: terrestrial by Lyndon John, Alwin Dornelly or Tim Jn Baptiste, Marine by Allena Joseph or Seon Ferrari, Freshwater by Ulrike Krauss. Since June 2011, Natalie Boodram of the Caribbean Environmental Health Institute (CEHI) was nominated to represent St Lucia on the freshwater working group. She is a riparian/freshwater ecologist and, through CEHI, has a sub-regional mandate. Saint Lucia reviewed each circulated version of the regional strategy and submitted comments in a timely manner. We volunteered – and acted accordingly when offer was welcomed – to spearhead regional liaison beyond the five pilot countries (i) in the OECS (St Lucia is the only OECS country in MTIASIC) and (ii) the French Caribbean DOM/TOMs (given St Lucia’s close geographic and historic ties). In July 2011, Ulrike Krauss was nominated by MALFF to represent Saint Lucia on the Invasive Species Working Group (ISWG) in support of the CBD Island Biodiversity Programme of Work (IBPOW). We hope that the strategy will eventually assist us in:

• be a catalyst of collaboration and knowledge exchange in the Wider Caribbean Region (sensu UNEP-CEP),

across cultural and language frontiers

• providing a harmonized regional language and approach to IAS issues, as well as the necessary critical

mass at regional fora, e.g. CARICOM/COTED and CISWG

• attract funding for cost-effective regional activities

• create a network of experts who can mutually bridge knowledge gaps

Recommendation:

• Explicitly mention in CIAS Strategy that the tourism sector should be targeted in a regional, collaborative

effort, e.g. airlines, cruise ships, hotel chains etc. for cost-effective and consistent awareness-raising.

Outcome 3 4. What is the status of the Best Practice Guidelines on IAS Management? What challenges and


Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment CSAs completed & disseminated fully achieved In public domain

(no mid-term target for Best Practice Guidelines: to be produced in years 3 & 4)

N/A See below

We moved away from producing guidelines with the term “Best Practices” in their title at too early a stage (flagged and subsequently agreed in regional PMU Skype conference). Current actual practices were critically assessed in the above-referenced baseline compendium and strategic recommendations for improvement were issued in the reports, including the CSA. Current best practices are compiled in the regional special bulletin, for which Saint Lucia submitted seven articles, contributed to a regional eighth and leveraged four more from project partners in Saint Lucia and the OECS and French Caribbean DOM/TOMs (all supplied on DVD: Component 3 outputs (incl for C4 & C5) - Knowledge Management\Special Bulletin on IAS practices). The concluding symposium in Trinidad (late 2013, possibly after project end) will present the end-of-project best practices with our lessons learnt. Recommendation: If the end-of-project best practices symposium is seriously being contemplated to take place after the project ends on 30 Sept 2013, funding, and probably contract extension, for project contractors, i.e. NCs


that are expected to attend, should be given careful thought now, as otherwise these key contributors may be in a new job or prioritizing the search for one and not be available.

5. What has been your country’s role in developing a regional lionfish control strategy? If your country



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Lionfish pilot project findings documented N/A to Saint Lucia

Stakeholder visits to all pilot sites N/A to Saint Lucia

Saint Lucia does not have an explicit lionfish pilot, but is getting prepared for the imminent arrival of the lionfish under Prevention (C4 pilot). Lionfish preparedness is a national priority, but this approach does not tie us excessively to one species, as there are other (and less well-know) threats out there. We have aimed to participate in any training opportunity. However, late notice prevented us from participation in the workshop in Mexico in 2010. We hope to make up for that by sending an increased number of participants to the 2011 workshop. Saint Lucia has been benefitting from lessons learnt on those project countries that have a lionfish pilot, most notably the Bahamas. A Bahamian expert trained Saint Lucian frontline officers and fisher folks in capture, cleaning, first aid to stings, and cooking methods of the lionfish. Since project inception, Saint Lucia has fully participated in the regional lionfish taskforce, chaired by Franck Gourdin of SPAW/RAC/PNG – UNEP. Regional activities are supported by and inform an active national Lionfish Task Force. For more details, see DVD Component 6 outputs - Project Management & Planning\Aquatics subcommittee meetings, Component 6 outputs - Project Management & Planning\Lionfish task force, Relevant external workshops & capacity-building for Saint Lucia\MIS Workshop Mexico Oct 2011and Relevant external workshops & capacity-building for Saint Lucia\UNEP CEP CAMPAM

6. What has been your country’s role in the development of the website? Do you have recommendations

for improvement? (if yes, please provide here)

Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Project website for internal use fully achieved Led by CABI & Trinidad; internal and

external interface available, the batter is EPT. Ahead of schedule, but see below

Linkages to other websites functional not achieved Led by CABI & Trinidad

ISC launched partly achieved Led by CABI: Beta version available

Saint Lucia’s involvement and recommendations:

• Lobbying for wider use/adoption, particularly with the Caribbean Invasive Species Working

Group (CISWG)

• Offered promotion via Carib_IAS_Threat YahooGroup

• Submitted national outputs on regular basis

• Provided constructive criticism to Bob & Velda, which continue to be my current

recommendations:

o The website need to be more dynamic, being updated about once a week

o The layout needs to be catchier and more user-friendly, allowing the casual visitor to get a

rough idea what to find where at a single glance (as opposed to reading summaries). As the

repository grows, we should have an interface that provides a better overview of what's


available. Report should be accessible form country and thematic tabs. "Older entries" is not

an attractive lure. For both items, feedback was received: the web developer had not been

available, but these items would be addressed

o PDF-A and PPG outputs are not uploaded. This was flagged, but except for the Polar &

Krauss report I re-submitted, nothing has happened

o CIASNET could host the extensive library that GISP used to host and thereby acquire more

critical mass. There has been no response to this suggestion.

o Need to include a menu tab "related links" and provide them. Specifically, Saint Lucia

recommended linkages to all co-financiers that have web pages and: http://www.necis.net/,

www.CaribbeanHub.net, www.sainlucianplants.com,

http://www.malff.com/images/stories/forestry/A_genetic_rescue_for_the_Saint_Lucia_whipta

il_lizard[1].pdf, http://www.durrell.org, http://www.fauna-flora.org/location/americas/,

http://especes-envahissantes-outremer.fr/, http://www.islands-footprint.com/,

http://www.zsl.org/conservation/regions/americas/caribbean-amphibian-conservation/,

http://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/repository/Regional_Caribbean_Invasive_Alie

n_Species.pdf, http://www.greenantilles.com/,

http://www.islandconservation.org/where/?id=20 . This advice has not been taken up.

o Flagged correction: “under site map: FPR is not a bacterium! Nor is it correctly translated as

‘monilia’. Picture could be better - I am sure CABI has plenty of more diagnostic ones.”

This advice has not been taken up.

7. What has been your country’s role in linking with GISP, GISIN, and IABIN? Given that these



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT)

Status Comment

None defined N/A Item ahead of schedule: some EPT have been tackled

• We have benefitted from the services of GISP and IABIN in particular. The latter provided

training in their risk assessment software, which we now use in-house.

• Several IASWG members are subscribed to the GLISPA list-serve. Unfortunately, travel to the

New Zealand meeting was too costly to be prioritized at the expense of several regional meeting,

so St Lucia did not participate

• We have established linkages with the Global Invasive Species Database and submitted a profile

for the alien iguana in Saint Lucia, which has been up-loaded.

• We are impressed by Aliens-L and benefit from their agility and access to information (also

beyond the scenes on the list serve)

• Saint Lucia is moderating the Carib_IAS_Threat YahooGroup with many regional linkages

evolving

• While I have an historic involvement with the ISC through past employment at CABI and have

had occasional looks at the beta version, no relevant direct interaction between Saint Lucia and the

ISC took place during FSP. Previously (during PPG), suggestions were submitted to ISC,

resulting in limited adoption. An erroneous report stating that Moniliophthora roreri occurred in

Cuba and Trinidad & Tobago was flagged to CABI (Trinidad) in mid 2010; the latter entry was

subsequently corrected in the ISC and Crop Protection Compendium (CPC).


• The focus of the ISC used to be on pests and diseases of plants and animals. As such, the ISC had

limited relevance to MTIASIC. This is now gradually changing, rendering the ISC more

comprehensive.

8. What has been your country’s engagement in education/outreach? What stakeholders have you



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Public awareness baselines assessed fully achieved

Target stakeholders agreed, including in private sector

fully achieved Item ahead of schedule: awareness increasing

Our approach was to first assess existing knowledge and awareness quantitatively, as well as determine which segments of the population consult which media for biodiversity-related information. This was done successfully and informed our CEPA. The awareness assessment was provided (Component 3 outputs (incl for C4 & C5) - Knowledge Management), as was the CEPA Strategy, as part of NISS. According to the CEPA, we aim to target all sectors of the resident population via the media they consult preferentially. Recycling these articles and programmemes will allow us to target also visitors to the island at minimal cost. They exceed resident in numbers and most likely risk as IAS vectors, but impact on awareness-raising activities is harder to assess. For products see DVD Component 3 outputs (incl for C4 & C5) - Knowledge Management. Main items up to mid term were:

• Several national symposia, e.g. biodiversity, Black Sigatoka, invasive plants

• Several training workshops for frontline professionals: ornamental invasive plants, quarantine,

phytosanitary training

• IAS module in St Lucia National Trust (SLNT) 2010 Your Environment Forum

• Television and radio interviews on relevant topics

• A series of 16 radio programmemes on how IAS affect everybody’s life

• Carnival: meetings and events, lionfish King costume, iguana reveler section, and contributions to

indigenous forest and floral scripts

• Submissions and technical backstopping for Forestry webpage and www.saintlucianplants.com

• Newspaper articles, press releases and contributions to Environmental Education Bulletin

• Pilot specific awareness - Prevention:

o 12-page brochure (terrestrial)

o signage (terrestrial)

o Posters (lionfish and seagrass – aquatic)

o Field trips for school children with SLNT 2010

o Multimedia Invader Game at Our Planet Center

• Pilot specific awareness – Alien and native iguana:

o Field trips for school children with SLNT, 2010 and 2011

o Two school lectures in Soufriere

o Questionnaires combined with community outreach

o Bounty promoted by business card and flyers

o Multimedia Iguana Game at Our Planet Center

Suggestion:

• Garner regional collaboration to target tourists (airlines e.g. via magazines, cruise ship lectures and

additional training for crew members, tourist brochures, hotels, etc.) jointly in cost-effective manner.

Include this item in CIAS Strategy


• We would like advise how impact of awareness-raising activities in an ever-changing population of

visitors could be estimated.

Outcome 4


What lessons have been learned?

Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment No IAS posing threat to rare endemic species

achieved On incipient re-introduction of rats on Pralin island was eliminated swiftly

Baseline survey completed by end year 1

achieved as art of CSA

Staff trained achieved Steven Lesmond & Mary James Tim Jn Baptiste (on-going)

Detailed activity plan in place achieved Terrestrial and marine monitoring plan in place (EPT), but schedule not always adhered to Lionfish response plan under review

Private sector engaged achieved

See DVD Component 4 outputs – Prevention. Main items are:

• Physical demarcation of marine reserve

• ReefCheck conducted. Marine monitoring in cooperation with SMMA, fisher folks and divers

(recreational, professional) and St Lucia Dive Association (private sector)

• Sentinel stations on off-shore islands maintained and monitored. Sandals Halcyon Hotel (private

sector) assists with Rat Island monitoring

• Prevention-specific CEPA wee-defined

• Awareness-raising with general public and training of frontline officers (see above for these two

items). St Lucia now has a much more alert and responsible response system, with major progress

particularly in marine systems

Key lesson:

• The MALFF needs to collaborate with NGOs and private sector for cost-effective use of human

resources and effective monitoring

• Prevention requires a carrot & stick approach

• Public education needs to be continuous

Outcome 5



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Baseline data available by end year 1

achieved

Live trapping grid established achieved

Field staff, dogs & dog-handlers trained

partly achieved Detector dog work was piloted in year 2, but no suitable local dogs and handlers could be identified for training. Budget constraints now forced us to suspend this approach

See DVD Component 5 outputs – Eradication. Main items are:


• Continuous distribution assessment

• Comparison of capture methods

• Pioneers conservation dog for detecting iguanas

• Workshops on best detection and capture practices

• Awareness raising with general public and (see above) active involvement in detection monitoring

Key lessons:

• The MALFF needs to collaborate with the local population to effect buy-in and effective detection at

margins of distribution. Land access is an issue for some owners of large estates and requires a carrot

& stick approach.

• Conservation dogs are very promising in detecting largely arboreal iguanas, even in difficult terrain

• It is hard to keep people motivated, particularly as the capture rate decreases with decreasing iguana

population densities

Recommendation:

• Seek additional donors/fund to resume detection dog work in order to build up a small local unit.



Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment None for Saint Lucia N/A

All Component 4 activities, including relevant awareness raising (component 3), address IAS in protect sites of high conservation value, as mentioned above. The Prevention pilot takes place in the PSEPA, which also include both of St Lucia’s Ramsar sites, and has expanded beyond the pilot site, i.e. to the Soufriere Marine Management Area. The Iguana eradication project has led to add-on terrestrial activities in the Soufriere area, which includes the Pitons World Heritage. Invasive plants have been identified and catalogued; remedial action has been recommended and actions are being planned for year 3. Output 6

12. What is the status of the project offices, Project Plan, and reporting system? What challenges have

you encountered? If you have suggestions for improvement, please provide them.

Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment Project offices operational fully achieved

Project Plan in place and implemented fully achieved

Reports produced to time largely achieved While technical reports were consistently on time, delays with financial reports did occus

• Facilities are fully adequate

• Detailed work plans and concomitant budgets were prepared in timely manner (see DVD Component 6

outputs - Project Management & Planning\Budgets) and implemented, following CABI and UNEP

approval

• Similarly, reports are up-to-date (see DVD Reports\MTIASIC). Technical reports from Floral

Research and Durrell cross-fertilize MTIASIC reports.

• Financial reports were often late in the early stages of the project. This was due to overly onerous

reporting duties existing staffing levels could not handle within the requested time frame. Incentive


payments to facilitate after hour work were disallowed. At present, this difficulty is overcome:

reporting formats have been better standardized, MALFF hired new (additional) accountants, and Saint

Lucia shifted much co-finance from in cash to in kind to reduce reporting chores without affecting

support levels.

• Most challenges were of administrative nature, either related to:

o slow and bureaucratic Government procedures (procurement, timely payment of contractors,

excessive dependence of too few, nearly irreplaceable individuals) and budget approval in year 2,

delaying the contracting of pilot site workers for nine months

o overly onerous reporting duties, particularly for finances (see above)

o regional project management with limited flexibility (countries are expected to fit into CABI

management structure, budget approval of one compliant country can be delayed by other country

that has not submitted the required plans in regional project) and resources to provide

support/training (no visibility of Global Director for IAS, GISP closed down, ISC not yet

launched, limited training in IAS economics).

o GEF/UNEP rule of budget line group 13XX not being eligible for GEF funding without special

exemption from UNEP, following approval by the Ministry of Public Service. This rule not only

limits the technical, field and administrative support the project could potentially muster, but also

excludes qualified public servants from additional-capacity building in IAS management on-the-

job; instead recruitment is forced to focus on either external short-term consultants,

inexperienced/unemployed incumbents, retirees.

Suggestion: Allow with a less onerous procedure the payment of overtime by Saint Lucian public servants. This would allow enhancing in-house capacity, particularly among staff who are likely to stay with the service – and hopefully IAS management - for many years to come. However, significant senior management time invested so far has yielded little return on investment.

• Refusal of land access for IAS search and removal is a challenge with some land owners. For invasive

plants and their pests, this can be overcome by a court order, but we have not yet resorted to this.

Legislation regarding invasive animals that are not plant pests or human pathogens/parasites is weak.

We will address this in the IS Act that is being drafted.

• Hurrican Tomas on 30 Oct 2010 was a major set-back for the nation and by extension also to the IAS

project, particularly the C5 pilot.


Summary:

Mid-term target (MTT) Status Comment M&E Plan being implemented to time achieved

Two external audits competed achieved Led by CABI

M & E for project management is in place and follows Appendix 4 of the project document. Completed tracking tool was submitted Pilot activities and awareness-raising are being monitored against annual work plans. Progress (or lack thereof) is reported regularly and assessed via the PIR. A long term M & E Plan adapted to St Lucia’s particularities is presented in Chapter 6 of the NISS. Financial audits are led by CABI. Two annual audits have been completed during FSP.


TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO: Questions for National-Level Response Date: 20th October 2011 Name and email address of person responding: Velda Ferguson-Dewsbury; [email protected] Outcome 1

1. How was the National Steering Committee designed, how sits on it, and how often does it meet? Note: if

there are subgroups to the NSC, please provide information on these as well.

a. The National Steering Committee consists of all the national partners involved in the project as well

as other stakeholders who have an interest in environmental protection. As such it consists of

personnel from Ministry of Food Production, Land & Marine Resources, Research and Fisheries

Divisions; Ministry of Housing & the Environment, Forestry Division; Institute of Marine Affairs;

Environmental Management Authority; University of the West Indies; University of Trinidad &

Tobago; Trust for Sustainable Livelihoods; Petroleum Company of Trinidad & Tobago

(PETROTRIN); Point- a- Pierre Wild Fowl Trust.

b. The NSC meets at least once per quarter.

c. Three National working groups have been established as a subgroup of the NSC. There are the

Freshwater Working Group, Marine Working Group and Terrestrial Working. Each group consists of

a number of specialists in the fields and is chaired by a member of the NSC.

2. What is that status of the National Strategy? How has the development process been undertaken? Who

has been involved? What are the next steps/timeline?

a. The draft of the National Strategy has been completed and is currently being circulated to technocrats

within the executing agency for comments. A consultant was hired to research the information and

develop the strategy. He was guided in the development by the members of the NSC who reviewed

and made comments on the strategy. Based on this system the strategy underwent 4 rewrites before

the final draft version was accepted by the NSC.

b. The next step is to hold public consultations where members of the public will get a chance to review

and comment on the strategy. These consultations will also be used as a forum for education persons

on IAS and IAS related issues. This is expected to be completed by Q2 Y3.

Outcome 2 3. What has been your countries involvement in development of the Regional IAS Strategy? How will this

strategy influence your work at the national level?

a. Trinidad and Tobago has actively participated in the development of the Regional IAS Strategy. It

will assist in the implementation of some of the activities at the national level since some of the

comments of the Regional Strategy feeds into elements of the National Strategy.

Outcome 3 4. What is the status of the Best Practice Guidelines on IAS Management? What challenges and


No response given.




a. Under this project Trinidad and Tobago does not have a Lionfish pilot project however in an attempt

to reduce the impact the fish could have on the country if and when it reaches our shore the Institute

of Marine Affairs in collaboration with the Fisheries Division and the Department of Natural

Resources, Tobago House of Assembly has developed a lionfish awareness and surveillance

programme.


6. What has been your countries role in the development of the website? Do you have recommendations for

improvement? (if yes, please provide here)

a. Trinidad and Tobago has been contributing information to the website. In order to improve the

website I believe that someone should be hired to work on updating the site on a regular basis.




a. Trinidad and Tobago has been assisting with the compilation of the invasive species compendium;

through the submission of a list of IAS present in the country for inclusion in the compendium.




a. The education / outreach programme embarked upon under this project has targeted a range of

stakeholders including cocoa farmers, agricultural, quarantine & forest officers, school children,

university students and the general public.

b. These stakeholders were selected based on the expected outcomes of the pilot projects e.g. the frosty

pod project is aimed at preventing the entry of the disease into the country thus the public awareness

in the project was geared mainly towards cocoa stakeholders such as cocoa farmers and

manufacturers as well as agricultural officers.

c. The products produced include training manuals, brochures and posters.

Outcome 4 9. What has your country done to address invasive species prevention? How effective has this been? What

lessons have been learned?

a. In order address invasive species prevention an educational campaign has been launched to alert

persons about the importance of IAS prevention. This has been done through the development of

brochures as well as the conduct of training sessions on IAS, their impacts the importance of

preventing their introductions and the measures which can be taken to ensure that IAS are not

introduced into the country..

b. Under the Frosty Pod Pilot the project will be developing an Emergency Action Plan to be

implemented should the disease reach the country. This plan will be adaptable to other IAS and

countries.

Outcome 5 10. What has been your country undertaken in the context of invasive species control/eradication? How


a. Before the development of this project Trinidad and Tobago has been able to successfully control the

hibiscus mealy bug. The campaign against the mealy bug included a very comprehensive public

awareness campaign, which played an important role in controlling the mealybug. A similar approach

has been undertaken with the Giant African Snail. Through the awareness campaign the Ministry of

Food Production has been able to contain the snail in western Trinidad.

b. The success of these campaigns thus far indicates that public awareness and education is an important

component of the attempt to control / eradicate IAS.



a. Under this project the country has embarked upon its first major attempt to protect an area of high

conservation value from IAS. Since this project is ongoing it is too early to say how effective it has

been.

b. One of the lessons learnt thus far is the extent of the damage which can be caused by IAS and the

number of activities; both biological and economic which can be disrupted as a result of an IAS as is

the case of the Red Palm Mite in the Nariva Swamp which is causing the destruction of several native

species of palms in the swamp. Since these palms serve several important function such as food


source for birds and monkeys; wind barriers; coastal protection; etc. the loss of them could eventually

mean the loss of the Swamp.

Output 6 12. What is the status of the project offices, Project Plan, and reporting system? What challenges have you

encountered? If you have suggestions for improvement, please provide them.

a. The project office has been established and is fully functional. The project plan and reporting system

has been developed and is functional. Project implementation reports are submitted to the project

Manager on a monthly basis. Occasionally there are delays in the submission of reports and this is

mainly due to the late receipt of reports for the team leaders of the pilot projects.


a. To date two external audits have been completed

Project Number GFL/ 2328–2713-4A86 (PMS: GF/1030-09-03 ... Eval… · MTIASIC / Mid-Term Review...

Documents

Transcript of Project Number GFL/ 2328–2713-4A86 (PMS: GF/1030-09-03 ... Eval… · MTIASIC / Mid-Term Review...