PROJECT BRIEF
1.
IDENTIFIERS:
PROJECT NUMBER
NAME OF PROJECT:
ECU/00/G41
Ecuador: Control of Invasive Species in the Galapagos
Archipelago
DURATION:
Six Years
IMPLEMENTING AGENCY:
UNDP
EXECUTING AGENCIES:
Ministry of the Environment
REQUESTING COUNTRY:
Ecuador
ELIGIBILITY:
Ecuador ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1993
GEF FOCAL AREA:
Biodiversity
GEF PROGRAMMING FRAMEWORK: OP# 1: Arid and Semi-Arid Zone Ecosystems.
2.
SUMMARY:
The Galapagos Islands are a globally outstanding repository of biodiversity and centre of endemism, and
have since Darwin’s time, been recognised as a natural laboratory for speciation and thus for the study of
evolutionary processes. The Islands have been designated a World Heritage Site on account of their
global significance. The Government of Ecuador has demonstrated a strong commitment to their
conservation, having ‘set aside’ 97% of the land area as a National Park, and creating a large Marine
Reserve—exemplary actions that have shielded the archipelago from severe anthropogenic pressures. But
threats remain, primarily from the past and potential future invasion of alien species, which are already
responsible for habitat degradation, and prey on, and compete with native wildlife. The proposed project
aims at fully empowering Ecuadorian institutions charged with conserving the Islands to proactively, and
adaptively, manage these threats, and guard against future ‘bio-invasion’ by taking a precautionary
approach to ecosystem management. In accordance with National Conservation Strategies, a ‘total
control’ framework for invasive species is advanced. The project will build technical skills for and
establish the relative cost-efficiency of different management models.
Interventions will seek to 1] prevent future species colonisation by improving quarantine systems; 2]
demonstrate cost effective means of eradicating, controlling, and mitigating the impacts of invasive
species through pilot projects that exemplify the spectrum of current management challenges; 3] build
capacity to perform targeted research, to understand the nature of current and future threats, and plan
mitigation efforts; 4] build an overlay of invasive species management into sectoral development;5]
establish a financial mechanism to compensate for the recurrent costs of control measures, and build the
capacities of management agencies to capture non-GEF investments for replicating eradication efforts;
and 6] build awareness in the archipelago and mainland regarding the problem. As management is
unlikely to succeed without the active co-operation of the Islands’ 16,000 residents, local communities
will be actively engaged in planning and executing operations.
3.
COSTS AND FINANCING (US$ MILLION):
GEF:
PDF A and B
US$ 18.30
US$ 0.38
Confirmed Co-Financing
GoE
UNDP/UNFPA*
UNF
CDF*
European Community
IDB
Private Sector
AECI
USAID
WWF
Total Confirmed Co-financing
US$ 1.04
US$ 0.30
US$ 3.00
US$ 3.37
US$ 0.34
US$ 2.88
US$ 1.90
US$ 1.00
US$ 0.01
US$ 1.20
US$ 15.04
* Not Including preparatory costs
Co-Financing to be raised (Private sector)
Total Co-financing
Total GEF
US$ 8.20
US$ 23.24
US$ 18.30
Total Project Cost
US$ 41.54
4.
ASSOCIATED FINANCING: Baseline financing costed at US$ 63.43 million over 6 years of which
US$0.94 is GEF Medium Project “Monitoring Galapagos”
5.
OPERATIONAL FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT:
Name: Yolanda Kakabadse
Organisation: Ministry of the Environment
6.
Title:
Date:
Minister of the Environment
September 3rd, 1999
IA CONTACT: Lita Paparoni, Regional Co-ordinator, UNDP/ RBLAC GEF Unit,
Tel (212) 906 5468; Fax (212) 906 6688; e mail (lita.paparoni @undp.org)
List of Acronyms
AECI
CBD
CDF
CDFRS
CEDENMA
COP
EMG-IDB
EU
FOG
GISP
GMR
GNP
GNPS
GoE
SESA
SLG
IDB
INGALA
IS
MA
MAG
NBSAP
NGO
SBSTTA
SICGAL
SLG
UNF
USAID
Spanish International Cooperation Agency
Convention on Biological Diversity
Charles Darwin Foundation
Charles Darwin Foundation Research Station
Ecuadorian Committee for the Defence of Nature and the Environment
Conference of Parties for the CBD
Environmental Management in Galapagos (IDB funded project to start up in year
2000)
European Union
Friends of Galapagos
Global Invasive Species Programme
Galapagos Marine Reserve
Galapagos National Park
Galapagos National Park Service
Government of Ecuador
Ecuadorian Service for Agriculture and Livestock Sanitation
Special Law for Galapagos
Interamerican Development Bank
National Institute for Galapagos
Invasive Species
Ministry of the Environment
Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Production
National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
Non-Governmental Organisation
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice
Galapagos Quarantine and Inspection System
Special Regime Law for the Conservation and Development of Galapagos Province
United Nations Foundation
US Agency for International Development
PROJECT CONTEXT
1.
Environmental Context: The Galapagos Islands are world renowned as a storehouse of unique
terrestrial and marine biological diversity, as a natural laboratory for biological evolution and
speciation, and for their role in stimulating development of Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection.
This volcanic, oceanic archipelago was formed some four million years ago, 1,000 km from any
other landmass. It has 5 islands larger than 500 km2, 14 smaller ones, and over 50 islets and rocks.
Initially devoid of life, the islands were gradually colonised by a variety of life forms, many of
which, continually isolated from the mainland, evolved into new species. The archipelago now
supports a rich diversity of flora and fauna including 541 species of vascular plants, 106 species of
vertebrates and over 1,995 species of invertebrates. An exceptionally high percentage of these are
endemic, including 42% of the vascular plants, 67% of the land vertebrates, amongst which are the
famous Darwin finches, and 20% of the 2,584 species of coastal fish, marine algae and marine
invertebrates. Inter-island variation is also very high with the various islands harbouring genetically
distinct populations, races and species, reflecting different stages of genetic diversification/ radiation.
2.
While evolutionary processes culminating in high endemism are characteristic of oceanic
archipelagos in general, most such archipelagos were colonised by humans several hundreds if not
thousands of years ago. In colonising the islands, humans intentionally and unintentionally
introduced new species to these isolated environments. As a rule, competition between introduced
and endemic species led to high rates of extinction among the endemics. Losses of up to 50% of the
original species endowment have been recorded in such archipelagos (Annex E). The Galapagos has
been an exception to this rule. Over 95% of its original species composition remains extant. This is
attributed both to the late arrival of humans to the area and to the archipelago’s inhospitable
conditions, which discouraged rapid population expansion. Many of the islands are still uninhabited.
3.
In effect, the Galapagos Islands are one of the most ecologically intact large, complex, and
diverse oceanic archipelago’s remaining today. Its global significance is unquestionable. However,
accelerated demographic growth in the Islands over the past 20 years has exerted new pressures on
native ecosystems. The increased movement of goods from the continent and between islands poses
the steady threat that alien species will be introduced into the archipelago from the mainland, or
dispersed within it, thereby altering the composition of the biota. The risk to endemic species from
invasive species is often considerable. Invasive species directly affect habitat integrity and also
interrupt the natural evolutionary processes that produced the archipelago’s unique biological
endowment. The well-recognised global conservation values1and this growing pressure, make the
Galapagos Islands one of the highest priorities for regional and global conservation intervention.[1] 2
4.
Socio-Economic Context: The province of Galapagos has 16,109 residents, restricted to only
3% of the total landmass of the archipelago. Eighty-six percent of the population live in the urban
areas of three main districts: Puerto Baquerizo Moreno in San Cristobal Island; Puerto Ayora in the
island of Santa Cruz, and Puerto Villamil, in Isabela Island. The remaining 14% of the populace live
in rural areas surrounding these settlements and on the island of Floreana. A small, mainly military,
community lives on Baltra Island, servicing the airport there and tour boats. The population has
grown at some 8% per year over the last two decades owing to immigration (5.9%) from the
continent, sparked by a spatial imbalance between living conditions and economic opportunities
1
2
The Galapagos was named one of the first World Heritage Sites in 1979 and a Biosphere Reserve in 1984
It is included in the WWF Global 200 programme and is listed as a top priority in Dinerstein. see reference 1.
All further bibliographic references in the main body of the text are numbered in square brackets [ ].
1
available in the archipelago, relative to those prevailing on the mainland3.
5.
The total GDP of Galapagos is approximately US$ 96 million (in 1999 dollars). Tourism
provides the principal source of livelihood with the industry accounting for 77% of income, and
61.3% of jobs. Fishing falls into second place, followed by the agricultural and livestock industries.
A total of 24,533 hectares (limited to the islands of Santa Cruz, San Cristobal, Isabela and Floreana)
is dedicated to agriculture and livestock production. This represents 3.8% of the landmass of the
archipelago. Of this total area, scientists estimate some 21% to be affected by invasive plant species.
57.8% is dedicated to grazing (natural and cultivated pasture); 8.9% comprises native forest; 1.2%
planted forest and 11% cultivated land. Coffee constitutes the main cash crop, followed by maize,
fruit trees, casaba, vegetables and tomatoes. Livestock production is dominated by cattle, but
includes chickens and goats. Production is limited in the main to San Cristobal and Santa Cruz.
6.
Policy Context: The GoE has provided protection to the Galapagos through establishment of
the Galapagos National Park (GNP). The Park, created in 1959, covers 97% of the archipelago’s
landmass and is girdled by the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR), which has recently been expanded
to cover an area of 130,000 km2. Ecuador’s National Environmental Plan (1995) tagged this province
as one of five priority ecosystems in a country of outstanding biodiversity. In April 1998, an
unprecedented policy framework was established for the Galapagos with the creation of the “Special
Regime Law for the Conservation and Development of Galapagos Province” (SLG). This law gives
provincial institutions the mandate to control population growth and ensure the compatibility of
economic enterprises with conservation. It decrees that development in the archipelago be guided by
ecosystem carrying capacity and adopts principles to conserve ecosystem integrity, particularly the
protection of native and endemic biodiversity. This includes a ban on distant water fishing in
archipelagic waters to protect the well-recognised global marine biodiversity of the Marine Reserve,
a measure with attached opportunity costs. It also establishes mechanisms to earmark revenues from
Park entrance fees for conservation initiatives in the archipelago – a sign of the Government of
Ecuador’s’ strong commitment to protecting this rich global heritage, despite its fiscal insecurity 4.
7.
The SLG lists the introduction of alien species to the islands as constituting the main threat to
biodiversity and advances a “total control” approach to address this concern. This approach consists
of a four-pronged strategy that aims to:- 1] prevent the introduction of new invasive species into the
archipelago; 2] control the dispersal and population growth of existing invasive species; 3] eradicate
the most aggressive species and populations that are threatening ecosystem integrity; and 4] mitigate
the ecological impacts of invasive species through the restoration of habitats following successful
control and eradication campaigns. It clearly defines institutional responsibilities for this task and
formally recognises the need for involving non-governmental organisations and local communities
and strengthening the longstanding partnership of the GoE with the World scientific community.
8.
Institutional Context: The Ministry of the Environment (MA) was created in 1996 and is
charged with defining environmental policies and co-ordinating their implementation. It establishes
the basic guidelines for conservation and sustainable development in the islands. The Galapagos
National Park Service (GNPS) is the executive branch of the MA in the islands, and is responsible
for the management of protected areas including the control of natural resource exploitation and
3
Per capita income is US$ 6,000 (in main urban areas) versus US$ 1,229; the educational index 64.8% versus
58.5%; the health 67.6% versus 57.7%, and overall poverty values 18.8% versus 58.4% respectively.
4
The SLG earmarks GNP entrance fees as follows; 40% for the GNPS-GNP; 5% for GNPS - GMR; 5% for the
Ecuadorian Navy for surveillance of the GMR; 5% for the quarantine system-SICGAL; 10% for INGALA; 20% for
municipalities; 10% for the Provincial Council; 5% for the National Protected Areas Network.
2
invasive species control within their boundaries[2]. In view of their size, and the magnitude of the
task, the GNPS has established a long-standing partnership with the NGO the Charles Darwin
Foundation (CDF) to provide them with technical and scientific advice for conservation and invasive
species control through its Charles Darwin Research Station (CDFRS) on Santa Cruz. The CDF’s
technical responsibilities, established in a legally binding agreement dating back from 1958 and
renewed for 25 years in 1991, were further enforced and reiterated in the SLG5. The SLG, and
Ecuador’s Constitution, creates a specific legal regime for the province presided by a local
institution, the National Institute for Galapagos –INGALA. This institute is charged with the
responsibility for regional planning, and for providing technical advice to, and co-ordinating, local
institutions. Other public institutions are also responsible for supporting ecosystem conservation, for
example, the three municipalities, and the provincial divisions of the Ministries of Agriculture and
Livestock, Health and Education. (Annex I details these mandates).
BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION
9.
Threats to Biodiversity: The creation of the extensive protected area network has served to
shield the Galapagos archipelago from severe anthropogenic pressures. In recent years, efforts have
focused on strengthening protected area operations and controls. Despite these inputs, the unique
global values of the archipelago remain under threat. The most critical threats, and their
accompanying root causes are detailed in the Threats Annex (F), and are briefly summarised below:
(i)
Introduced Species: The natural background rate of successful species colonisation in the
Galapagos is extremely low. Although figures are not available for fauna, the rate for vascular plants
has been estimated at 1 species every 10,000 years. Since first human contact in the Galapagos,
nearly 500 new plant species have been introduced, a disproportionate amount of which arriving in
the past thirty years, resulting in a current introduction rate of about 8 species per year 6[3]. This vast
increase is due to the high number of alien species introduced to the Galapagos deliberately or
accidentally as agricultural, horticultural or ornamental plants, or in shipments of imported foodstuffs
and goods. There are currently over 785 documented introduced species in the Galapagos of which
500 are plants, 25 are vertebrates and the remainder invertebrates. Not all of these species threaten
native and endemic flora and fauna as they are only able to survive as part of a managed agricultural
or horticultural system. However, others have become aggressive invasives and require immediate
control to avoid irreversible damage. These species thrive under local conditions, propagate
naturally, and invade native ecosystems, threatening evolutionary processes and biodiversity through
competition with, and displacement, predation, and parasitisation of native and endemic species. [4][5]7
5
CDF is named in the SLG as member of the INGALA Council and its Technical and Planning Committee,
member of the GMR Participatory Management Group, educational advisor and advisor for the Inter-institutional
Management Authority. Articles 55 and 56 respectively, specify CDF responsibilities to work with government
authorities on annual programmes for eradication of invasive species in agricultural areas and advise on the
regulations and procedures for "total control" of introduced species.
6
Based on on-going monitoring and research, it is estimated that about 250 new plants have arrived since 1970.
For example, Feral Goat populations, lacking local predators, have multiplied, transforming large areas of
previously densely vegetated lands into scrub and grasslands. Pigs prey on tortoise and sea turtle eggs, and the
introduced black rat, which also preys on bird eggs and young tortoises, has displaced endemic rice rats. Cats prey
on lava lizards, young marine and land iguanas and on birds. Introduced plants also have widespread effects, rapidly
spreading and physically displacing native and endemic flora. Localised invasions of cottony cushion scale, avian
pox, biting black flies and little red fire ants indicate the increasing pressure from invertebrates and microorganisms. Annex E provides further data on the impact of the various introduced species on native species/ habitats.
7
3
(ii)
Contamination of Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Groundwater contaminated by
untreated wastewater, seeps into the coastal waters immediately adjacent to human settlements.
Although such pollution has a measurable effect on water quality and on the flora and fauna in very
specific areas, the overall impact on biodiversity is minor given the minute proportion of inhabited
coastline. Contamination from solid waste is a minor threat to biodiversity, though poorly managed
landfills do provide footholds for the establishment and propagation of introduced species.
Occasional shipwrecks cause localised contamination of shorelines and can threaten species at risk of
extirpation because of their low numbers (fur seals, flightless cormorants, and Galapagos penguins).
(iii) Exploitation of Natural Resources: Extractive activities, primarily fishing, and to a lesser
extent, logging and subsistence hunting have had some effect on the Galapagos’ biodiversity over the
centuries. Conservation efforts by the GNPS and CDF have reduced poaching of tortoises and
iguanas and stopped commercial killing, particularly of fur seals. Agricultural activities have also
affected biodiversity. When the GNP was created, most of the land excluded from it was already
under cultivation. These areas generally had the most favourable growing conditions on the Islands
and constituted some of the islands’ most biodiversity rich ecosystems 8. However, for several
reasons, including lack of access to capital for farming operations, sub-optimal growing conditions,
weak marketing frameworks and a generally unprepared farming community, a significant proportion
of this land is poorly utilised or lies idle. These abandoned plots are centres for the establishment and
propagation of invasive plants and invertebrates. Several species, including Elephant grass,
blackberry, tropical cedar and quinine have spread from agricultural areas to adjacent wildlands.
(iv)
Population Pressures: Invasive species are the main proximate threat to biodiversity, but a
root cause of this, and other proximate threats, is the increase in the human population. This has risen
from 1,400 in the fifties to the present 16,000. This growth has been accompanied by an acceleration
in the rate of introduction and dispersal of invasive species as the movement of goods to-and-from
the continent, between islands, and within islands increased. It has also led to an increase in waste
production, which has led to the contamination problems described above. Despite the concentration
of human settlements, poor planning has led to the inefficient use of space and the encroachment of
fragile habitats such as marsh land and mangroves, with negative impacts on some endemic birds.
Population increase has in part been spurred by the advent of tourism in the sixties, as immigrants
sought work. Some 60,000 visitors visit the archipelago each year. The direct effect of this industry
on biodiversity is surprisingly low because the government has limited visitor access to only 0.02%
of the park area. Nevertheless, the indirect impact of the industry is of concern, as it contributes to
the invasive species threat through the movement of food and cargo to and within the archipelago.
10.
Baseline: Until recently, Ecuador based its conservation strategy for the Galapagos Islands on
the creation and management of marine and terrestrial protected areas. However, the increased threat
of invasive species to biodiversity has impelled the GoE to expand the focus of its strategy and
develop a system to control the risk of bio-invasion. The programmatic baseline for conservation
activities is described below, focused on the types of interventions required to implement a ‘total
control’ programme against invasive species, as specified in the SLG. The incremental cost annex
(Annex A) provides information on planned baseline expenditures, estimated over a six-year horizon.
11.
Quarantine and Inspection: A number of measures to prevent the arrival and establishment of
new species to the Galapagos have been instituted in the past few years [6]. In 1994, the Galapagos
Inspection and Quarantine System (SICGAL) was created as a legal framework for this with distinct,
but co-ordinated, programmes implemented through different institutions both in Galapagos and on
8
This resulted in the loss of habitat for many endemic Galapagos species, including the giant tortoise.
4
the continent9. The full details of inspection and quarantine services are still being developed along
with the internal capacity to deliver them, however, a co-ordinator was hired in 1998, and the first
complement of inspectors in 1999. A large portion of the recurrent cost of SICGAL is guaranteed
through the earmarking of 5% of park entrance fees. Cost recovery mechanisms are expected to
augment these resources. However, these have yet to be fully designed and adopted. Despite these
efforts, effective prevention is impaired by several factors. The scale of the problem in terms of
numbers of species, vehicles of introduction, and forms of propagation, far surpasses the current
technical, operational and managerial capacity of local institutions. Although capacity building
programmes are planned, these do not have well-developed manuals and materials nor will they
cover all the institutions participating in SICGAL. Effective methods for detecting new invasions are
lacking, and quarantine treatment and inspection centres require up-graded infrastructure and
equipment and urgently need to be extended to prevent dispersal between islands and across park
boundaries.
12.
Adaptive Management Mechanisms for Bio-invasion Control:- Given technical, financial and
other constraints, it is probably not feasible to eradicate all introduced species in the Galapagos at
this time. In view of this, the GoE has recognised the need to adopt an adaptive management
approach to bio-invasion control, by developing a comprehensive planning system that would permit
a prioritisation of control and eradication efforts, to be executed in tandem with prevention and
ensure the most efficient use of available financial and human resources. Such a system would
require:- (i) continuously updated monitoring data on introduced and native species distributions and
population densities; (ii) advanced scientific knowledge of the real and potential threats that
particular introduced species represent under different circumstances, and the critical population
thresholds after which control measures should be replaced by eradication; (iii) the availability of
new control and eradication methodologies; (iv) the development of methodologies for those species
that have no current control technique in other parts of the world or that are not considered to
aggressive invasive elsewhere and (v) the improvements in invasion-prevention systems as capacity
grows and new functions are executed.
13.
Baseline action includes some biological monitoring, currently being reinforced through a
GEF/World Bank medium size project, and a range of pure and applied investigation. In the past
research activities have focused on attaining a more complete understanding of native and endemic
species and the ecological processes in the Galapagos 10. Limited research has been undertaken on
invasive species, mainly on developing ex situ captive-breeding programmes for threatened species,
as an insurance mechanism against their extinction and for repatriation programmes. Most of the
captive breeding programmes occur within the Galapagos Islands, thus providing captive populations
with environmental conditions that are nearly identical to those of their natural habitat. Current
programmes are targeting Galapagos tortoises and land iguanas. Research on the biology of these
species has greatly enhanced their success rate and permitted repatriation programmes that have
brought several species back from the brink of extinction11. In addition, the CDRS, GNPS and the
Botanical Gardens of the University of Copenhagen are collaborating in an ex situ conservation
programme for endangered Galapagos plants. The Gardens store seeds in state-of-the-art seed banks
and threatened species are also represented in the collection as living specimens.
SICGAL’s currently has a 4-member committee formed by local organisations (GNPS, CDF, MAG, INGALA).
Examples of research include the analysis and monitoring of the population status of reptiles, including tortoises,
rice rats, Galapagos petrel’s and mangrove finches, and studies of the distribution and ecology of introduced plants.
11
For example, CDF research found that sex of young Galapagos tortoises is determined by the temperature at
which it incubated as an egg. Ex situ breeding programmes used this information to increase the number of females
produced and repatriated these, thus speeding up recovery in endangered populations of these island species that are
characterized by low rates of population growth.
9
10
5
14.
Despite these advances, the rate of introductions of invasive species, and numbers of
endemic effected, has surpassed the capacity of the present research programme to provide sound
data on which to develop priorities and many critical gaps remain. In the business- as- usual scenario
there will be a sub-optimal allocation of human and physical resources for both invasive control
planning and research. Present research programmes will need to be expanded and planning expertise
developed to provide the specific and sound scientific information and planning systems that a full
bio-invasion control programme will require.
15.
Control and Eradication Capability: The range of management options for addressing existing
introduced species includes complete eradication, control of populations and mitigation of impacts.
However, the complexity of ecological processes rarely permits the adoption of any single option in a
given scenario but rather the simultaneous or sequential application of combinations of one or more
of these. The selection of the most appropriate combination requires a solid body of information
collected under field conditions and from the archipelago’s different habitats. It also requires strong
technical, operational and planning capacities to execute the given range of options, once selected.
16.
The GNPS and CDF have successfully controlled goats, rats, dogs, pigs, ants and other
species from various smaller islands over the past 20 years. These have generally been small-scale
interventions, where the selection of management options has been relatively straightforward and the
methodologies used have been field-proven in other countries12. Both institutions have secured
baseline funding to continue intervention at this level. However, this is not sufficient to address the
growing threat of bio-invasion and protect global conservation values. Furthermore, they do not have
the capacities to undertake larger-scale efforts or amass the body of information required to select the
most appropriate management option in more complex scenarios.A number of management
dilemmas exist, such as: What are the long-term costs of eradication versus mitigation for different
species? How can mega-size populations be successfully eradicated? Is mitigation more successful
via reducing the population of invasive species or increasing the reproductive success of indigenous
species? Which control and eradication methods are most effective for key invasive species under
which conditions? What interactive factors exist between specific indigenous flora and fauna that
influence the selection of specific management strategies and control methods?. If these dilemmas
are to be resolved, management options under different scenarios will need to be more intensively
tested.
17.
Financial Sustainability of a Bio-invasion Control Programme: Invasive species will always
be a potential threat to the Galapagos’biodiversity and controls will need to be sustained over the
long term. Steps have been taken to ensure the financial sustainability of some components of
invasive species control. The SLG assigns 5% of GNP entrance fees to cover the recurrent costs of
the present quarantine system. It also assigns 40% to the GNPS (covering a large percentage of the
institutional running costs of protected areas, such as maintenance of park infrastructure, and
patrolling and surveillance activities). However, it does not cover all the operational costs of control,
eradication and mitigation campaigns for alien species. The CDRS is given a clear mandate in the
12
Past eradication and control initiatives in the Galapagos have generated important lessons, which have guided
project design. These lessons include:- 1] the importance of establishing an intensive monitoring program following
eradication to ensure that no small pockets of survivors remain; 2] the need to effectively co-ordinate the activities
of the GNPS and the CDRS during the planning phase, the execution phase and the post eradication monitoring
phase of the project; 3] the value of training staff in advance in planned eradication methodologies and in the use of
advanced technologies such as radio- telemetry and global positioning systems; 4] the importance of securing
funding for the entire eradication campaign ex ante; and; 5] the value of acquiring equipment prior to start up.
6
SLG to provide scientific and technical assistance for the control of invasive species. But it does not
receive resources from the park entrance fees to finance this service. In an effort to sustain its
advisory role and other management services, it has established the Darwin Scientific Foundation (or
DSF), an endowment that will contribute to institutional running costs. But the Foundation is
undercapitalised and does not cater to the expanded services that invasive species control requires.
18.
The CDF has plans to expand the DSF to improve its financial sustainability, yet recognises
that the conservation of biodiversity in the Galapagos and particularly bio-invasion control, depends
on the strength of its partnership with GNPS. Plans for engendering the long-term financial
sustainability of control efforts must thus address the resource-needs of both organisations. The
current size and objectives of the DSF does not provide for this. Nor does it have the pre-requisite
operational and administrative framework to manage a large endowment –on the scale needed to
sustain a holistic bio-invasion control program and to protect globally significant biological diversity.
19.
Additional income for both the CDF and GNPS is raised through specific projects but this
puts severe pressures on research staff to develop proposals and, owing to gaps between project
cycles, causes fluctuations in critical research and control campaigns. Moreover, as projects normally
require considerable lead periods before becoming operational, there is often a sizeable lag between
problem identification and control. This slow delivery time is not suitable for emergency control
operations that are needed to combat unexpected increases in invasive species, for example,
following extreme climatic fluctuations. If the long-term viability of bio-invasion control is to be
guaranteed, innovative revenue generating mechanisms will need to be developed, including a
sufficiently capitalised and expanded trust fund, and fee-for-service framework for quarantine
services, among other things. Annex H provides details on current funding mechanisms and deficits.
20.
Community Participation Mechanisms: Given the relationship between anthropogenic
activities and the introduction and dispersal of invasives, a bio-invasion programme must involve all
Galapagos residents in order to be effective and sustainable. Proposed inspection and quarantine
mechanisms will only be successful if communities understand the nature and significance of the
problem and are willing to play an active role in its resolution. Also, residents, especially in the rural
sector, may become crucial allies in executing an early detection system. Educational programmes
have been carried out in the past by a variety of institutions, including the GNPS, and the CDRS,
which, through its environmental education department, has produced a variety of educational
materials in printed, radio and television formats. The armed forces have produced a coastal clean-up
and anti-pollution video. These initiatives have been successful in reaching much of the population at
large and children in particular and continued baseline investment has been secured to sustain them.
However, although the CDRS has begun to deal with the issue of introduced species, most past
efforts have focussed on general conservation themes. Further investment in outreach and awareness
building is needed to catalyse local action and participation in the invasive species control program.
21.
Regional and Sectoral Planning and Control of Invasive Species. Until recently, regional
planning capacities have been weak in Galapagos. The SLG seeks to correct this situation by
charging INGALA with the overall co-ordination of regional planning and providing new and
additional resources for absorbing the recurrent costs of this broader mandate. It also mandates that
invasive species management be integrated into development polices and programmes. INGALA is
currently undergoing a restructuring process to fulfil this new ordinance. However, it has generally
weak and untested planning capacities and no previous experience in invasive control, nor the
technical staff or information to produce the guidelines and procedures needed to ensure that sectoral
development complements bio-invasion control measures. The SLG also recognises a number of
other institutions as having new legal responsibilities in the effort to control bio-invasion. These
7
include municipalities, and sectoral institutions and associations, many of which have never been
involved in such activities and also need to incorporate new responsibilities and procedures into their
planning processes and activities, and restructure and train their human resource pool accordingly.
22.
While guidelines and procedures are required for a range of sectors, interventions are most
urgently needed in the agricultural sector. It is well recognised that poor management of the
agricultural estate and the high dependence of the archipelago on imported foodstuffs are
determinants of the invasive species threat. Efforts to develop more appropriate farming practices are
underway. The CDRS has begun a programme of agricultural intensification and marketing support
with the support of the Ecuadorian – Canadian Development Fund, to reduce the region’s
dependency on imported food stuffs and improve the management of agricultural lands whilst
respecting conservation goals. The MAG has several technicians and extension workers collaborating
with the farming community in an effort to improve yields, though its field programme remains
under-funded. These endeavors require reinforcement. In particular, the social, economic and
ecological viability of different management models needs to be elicited and their potential
contribution towards invasive species management goals assessed in order to guide future strategies.
23.
Contamination of Terrestrial and Marine Ecosystems: Solid and liquid wastes have generally
been disposed without treatment on the islands in landfills and covered cavities excavated in the
rocky and porous ground. Recognising that this is causing environmental contamination, the GoE has
sought assistance from the IDB to establish a waste management programme funded through their
Environmental Management of the Galapagos Programme (EMG-IDB). Slated to commence in early
the year 2000, this programme will seek, inter alia, to improve waste treatment and disposal systems.
24.
Natural Resource Management: Ecuador has invested heavily in the up-keep of protected
areas in the Galapagos and has earmarked resources for management from park entrance revenues.
Seventy park rangers control poaching and logging activities in and around the 7,760 km 2 park
territory and three vessels patrol the marine reserves to enforce fishing regulations. A GMR
management plan has recently been approved, and priority activities from it will be implemented
through the EMG-IDB. The plan excludes industrial fishing fleets within a 40 mile zone, leaving the
area accessible only to artisanal fleets based in the Galapagos. SLG allocates 5% of park entrance
fees to the Ecuadorian Navy to complement the GNPS’ patrol activities within this zone.
Commitments have been made to raise the sustainable development baseline still further through an
AECI funded project that will improve management of the artisanal fishery and on-going research at
the CDRS, which is expected to improve local fish stock assessment. The AECI project will also
focus on enhancing the sustainability of the tourism sector. Parallel investments in the sector will
also be made through an IDB financed technical co-operation project that will promote local tourism.
25.
Population Growth: With the passage of the new Special Law for Galapagos, a migratory
control system in Galapagos has been established. In the first 6 months of 1999, approximately 65
unauthorised migrants to the archipelago were returned to the mainland. The control system is in its
infancy and still requires a maturation period before it becomes completely effective, but these first
steps are significant, and clearly needed to foreclose massive population influxes from the mainland.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
26.
The proposed alternative course of action aims at addressing the programmatic gaps
identified within the baseline scenario. Its definition and development draws from an extensive and
highly participatory process. This includes first and foremost, the unprecedented, participatory
development and approval of the SLG, which identified invasive species as the principal threat to
8
biological diversity. GEF PDF A and B resources were used to identify and build a consensus on the
actions needed to implement a bio-invasion control programme, and co-ordinate the work of a variety
of institutions in project development. Co-funding, particularly for the design of the pilot projects,
was provided through GNP, CDF and UNDP. Two international workshops, convened in 1997 and
1999 respectively, provided a means of canvassing expert opinion and gathering inputs for project
design. The project thus fully reflects the state- of- the- art in the arena of alien species management.
27.
The overall goal of the GEF Alternative is to better conserve the extraordinary global
biodiversity value of the Galapagos through an integrated approach to ecosystem conservation that
addresses the single most important threat to terrestrial biodiversity[7]. This will be achieved through
a one-time investment in an array of capacity-building activities geared to develop Ecuador’s ability
to address the permanent threat of bio-invasion in a sustainable manner, while providing immediate
relief to endangered components of biodiversity. Management would be engineered within the
context of the SLG by adopting an approach that includes prevention, control, eradication and
mitigation elements. Co-financing for the GEF Alternative has been leveraged from the United
Nations Foundation (UNF), UNDP/ UNFPA, IDB, GoE, and CDF through a range of donors, the
private sector and other NGOs. This is in addition to the significant baseline investments that have
already made an important contribution towards protecting global conservation values (these are
described in the incremental cost annex). The project will have six outputs, summarised below:
Output 1: A co-ordinated inspection and quarantine system for Galapagos is in place with the
full participation of local institutions and with defined procedures and detection techniques.
28.
Activities would strengthen and operationalise the Galapagos Inspection and Quarantine
System (SICGAL). GEF and IDB resources will be used to improve and extend quarantine and
inspection infrastructure (i.e. control points, fumigation centres) and thus increase the efficiency of
alien species detection. GEF resources will develop specific operations manuals for quarantine and
inspection procedures for the Galapagos system operators and train them in relevant detection
methods. Materials will be up-dated periodically as findings from the research, monitoring and pilot
activities become available, thereby gradually focusing actions on species that present the highest
risk to biodiversity. GEF resources will also be used to develop an optimal internal transportation
protocol reducing dispersal rates within the archipelago, and to fund periodic workshops with the
different institutions involved in SICGAL, ensuring the uniform adoption of inspection procedures
and circulation of new procedures arising from adaptive management mechanisms [8]. UNF, GoE and
GEF resources will be used to systematically monitor areas with a high risk of introduction, such as
seaports, airports and agricultural zones, complementing general baseline biological monitoring. New
introductions detected through this and the community watchdog-system to be set-up under output 5,
will be eradicated by an emergency rapid response team to be established and trained with GEF and
UNF resources. A cost-recovery mechanism for quarantine and inspection services will be designed
as a direct complement to provisions under the SLG for covering the recurrent costs of SICGAL.
Output 2: Adaptive management mechanisms established to develop and up-date a
scientifically sound, well-programmed and cost-effective bio-invasion control programme.
An array of adaptive management tools will be put in place to ensure that efforts to control
the permanent threat of bio-invasion will be cost-effective, ecologically appropriate and continually
up-dated as new information and techniques become available. This will include prescriptive and
predictive models for establishing priorities and selecting the most appropriate and cost-effective
interventions from a range of bio-invasion management options. These models, to be developed with
GEF resources, will be based on the evaluation and correlation of a wide range of information
29.
9
including the contextualisation of existing methods and experiences from around the world,
biological monitoring reports and the results from the demonstration component. They will also
draw on a well-structured experimental research programme to be developed with GEF resources to
cover critical gaps in the scientific knowledge required to address specific IS management
challenges. These challenges include:- (i) Developing control and eradication methods for those
species that are not aggressive invasives elsewhere; for those that are aggressive elsewhere but for
which methods do not exist or are not available at the scales required; and for those species for
which methods exist elsewhere but that potentially more effective alternatives could exist in the
Galapagos; (ii) Evaluating the effect of recently introduced invasive species on a range of endemic
species and hence determine risks and priorities; (iii) Confirming causal relationship in complex
ecological settings that do not occur elsewhere; (iv) Determining how new alien species are
introduced and hence develop better detection and prevention measures to reduce the number of
establishments; and (v) Developing restoration methods for habitats following successful control of
invasives. More details of these challenges and examples of species to be targeted in the research are
provided in Annex G.
30.
GEF resources will be used to design this experimental research programme and to fund the
initial phase of implementation. They will also be used to set up a scientific exchange programme to
facilitate inputs from international experts to this research. CDF and UE resources will be used to
provide the additional infrastructure and equipment that such a research programme requires.
Sensitive habitat restoration research funded through WWF will contribute to these models as will
the baseline of biological monitoring funded in part through the GEF medium sized project. CDF
will provide funds to extend this monitoring beyond the duration of the medium size project. GEF
resources will establish a comprehensive collection and database of existing and potential invasive
species in order to improve identification of these species in the field, and thus improve capacities for
early detection, and to increase information on and risks so as to fine-tune predictive and prescriptive
models. Planning workshops, to be funded with GEF moneys, will be held periodically during the
life of the project to progressively develop, and fully cost, a Galapagos Bio-invasion Control Plan,
using these priority-setting tools. This will incorporate advances attained through the research
programme, pilot projects and public outreach spearheaded in Output 5.
Output 3: A series of eradication, control and mitigation pilot projects are implemented to
solve the key invasive species management dilemmas, strengthen the operational and technical
capacity of parties responsible for invasive species control, and eliminate critical populations.
31.
A series of pilot projects will test the effectiveness of different combinations of management
options, providing an essential body of information for overcoming invasive species management
challenges and contributing towards the design and execution of cost-effective, and technically
feasible, long-term management intervention throughout the Galapagos archipelago 13. These projects
will also raise the technical and operational capacities of key institutions responsible for invasive
species control, further contributing to institutional learning and strengthening nascent control
efforts. They will adopt robust replicate and control procedures that accurately measure the response
of the endemic target organism or system, and have been selected to protect the most endangered
species and habitats and solve the most pressing bio-invasion management dilemmas. The various
13
These differ from targeted research in output 2 as they will focus on known aggressive invasives for which
methods exist but require testing, at field scales and under different conditions, to plan and cost widespread
application. The research, in contrast, will be of a more experimental nature and on a different scale. Moreover, it
will focus on measuring the threat of potential invasives, and developing measures for those known aggressive
invasives that currently have no appropriate control methods. These actions will abet long-term conservation.
10
projects are briefly summarised below14. Further details on this component are provided in Annex G.
32.
One group of pilot projects, to be funded largely by the UNF, will focus on control and
mitigation management challenges. Three will target control of introduced black rats under different
conditions and locations:- (i) in Isabela island, where black rats threaten the endangered mangrove
finches, impacts will be measured and optimum levels of control determined to increase reproductive
success in these birds; (ii) in Santa Cruz, Floreana and San Cristobal islands, where they threaten the
Galapagos petrel, the optimum intensity of control measures will be identified; (iii) in Pinzon island,
where it is thought to be responsible for low tortoise recruitment rates, studies will determine its
relative impact compared to the Galapagos hawk, and subsequently required control and mitigation
measures will be applied. Two further pilot projects in this group will focus on mitigating the impact
of pigs on the recruitment rates of endemic green sea turtles and giant tortoise species in Southern
Isabela. These will test combinations of control and mitigation mechanisms to determine the most
cost-efficient means of protecting these species15. UNF and GEF resources will fund a pilot project
that combines elements of control with eradication by reducing high-density stands of quinine in
Santa Cruz to prevent it spreading to other islands and determining the feasibility of full eradication.
33.
A second group of pilot projects funded through UNF will focus on overcoming the
challenges of eradicating small-scale animal invasive populations and will include:- (i) the
eradication of a newly established population of smooth-billed anis on Fernandina island to develop
and test a rapid response team using advanced technology (GPS, GIS); (ii) the eradication of the only
three populations of rock doves in Galapagos to remove this threat completely and to demonstrate
how to address invasive species intimately associated with human activity and settlements; (iii) the
eradication of feral cats16 on Baltra island using control measures used in other parts of the world and
up-grading them to plan and implement larger-scale cat eradication programmes on other islands (iv)
the eradication of black rats from islets surrounding Santiago island to test eradication methods for
small islands and provide an invasive free habitat for re-introduction of the endangered Santiago rice
rat to maintain populations until a full ecological restoration of Santiago is complete; (v) eradication
of the red fire ant from Marchena island, where it was introduced several years ago, to replicate and
test lessons-learned from a previous fire ant eradication campaign in much smaller areas on Santa Fe
island; (vi) eradication of the small invasive black fly populations in San Cristobal Island to protect
freshwater endemic species and develop new technologies/ methods for dealing with invertebrates.
34.
GEF and CDF resources will fund a set of pilot projects that focus on archipelago-wide
eradication of plant species with limited distributions to remove this threat and to measure the longterm cost-effectiveness of eradication whilst populations are still low. Selected plant species with low
populations at present, but known to be serious invader species in other parts of the world, and which
pose a risk for the Galapagos, have been selected using criteria that include:- population size, known
invasive tendencies, availability of eradication technique, importance to human populations. They
will also be used for a set of projects that focus on eradication of small populations of plant species
with wide distribution, removing the threat progressively by preventing their spread in well-defined
14
These initiatives will be implemented in consultation with management experts in other small island
environments (i.e. New Zealand and Mauritius), who have been engaged in invasive species management work.
15
Given the site’s remoteness, the GNPS is hard pressed to maintain intensive controls. Interventions will combine
non-intensive control activities of the pig population during the nesting season, with the relocation of eggs into
fenced in areas. Results will be compared to nesting success rates in areas with no pig control, and successful
measures will be replicated.
16
Black rat populations will be monitored to detect any increase following removal of cats and if necessary
appropriate control measures will be applied so as to limit impacts. Similarly, monitoring on the islets closest to
Santiago will measure any re-colonisation by black rats and timely control measures will be applied as necessary.
11
geographic areas (individual islands) and uncovering costs for total eradication of larger populations.
Up to 5 populations of plants17 known to be aggressive invaders in Galapagos, but that on several
islands have small eradicable populations, were selected including Rubus niveus on Isabela, which
threatens to become a serious problem, as it has on other islands within the archipelago. A further 25
species will be selected for eradication by year two of the project (following further inventory work).
35.
Finally, one large, resource-intense, pilot project, funded by the GEF, GoE and CDF, will
focus on the problem of eradicating mega-populations. This will remove the most critical invasive
species threat in the archipelago and establish the technical, operational and managerial capacity to
plan and implement campaigns on this scale[9]. It will eradicate the 100,000 strong feral goat (Capra
hircus) population on northern Isabela Island and, together with local communities, design the
subsequent eradication of the much smaller population on the southern half of the island 18. This
island represents more than half the archipelago’s total land mass and has more endemic species than
any other island, with 66% of the endemic vertebrates and 40% of the endemic vascular plants
represented. Browse pressure of the goats in the northern half is seriously effecting these plants and
the herbivores that depend on them for food or for shade and water, including the giant Galapagos
tortoises that constitute approximately half of the total remaining population of this unique species.
Evaluations by international experts in invasive control and eradication indicate that eradication in
northern Isabela is feasible if sufficient levels of resources are guaranteed. Re-introduction control
would be cost-effective because of the natural buffer provided by the Perry Isthmus, which is a
crucial component of the strategy to prevent movements of goats from southern Isabela northwards19.
In addition, native plant seeds are still sufficiently abundant to naturally recover, post-eradication.
36.
Formally backed by leading feral ungulate control experts, and under scrutiny from
international conservation organisations interested in the eradication of mega-populations of invasive
species, the Isabela Project will be the first of its kind and will provide invaluable lessons for goat
eradication on large islands throughout the world. It will require the adaptation of methodologies
proven in other parts of the world (i.e. the Judas goat technique, helicopter assisted hunting), to
environmental conditions and scales in the Galapagos. It will also require extensive training, the use
of advanced technologies such as radio-telemetry, global positioning and geographic information
systems and the establishment of a professional hunting dog-training programme to support field
operations. The project will include a campaign to impart awareness of the need to perform the
eradication, targeted at communities20, decision-makers in government /civil society, and animal
rights groups.
Output 4: An expanded and efficiently operating financial mechanism is operationalised
permitting the permanent funding of invasive species control activities in the Galapagos.
30.
The project would create a permanent financial mechanism to provide sustained financing to
17
Aristolochia odoratissima (Dutchman's pipe), Citharexylum gentryi, Dalechampia scandens (Choking vine),
Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth), Rubus adenotrichos (Blackberry), Rubus niveus (Isabela population only).
18
The invasive species target and the population locality were carefully selected using criteria that included:- the
potential ecological degradation, ecological importance of locality, possibility of natural recovery post-eradication,
proven eradication methods, population size of invasive species and institutional jurisdiction (see Annex G).
19
Northern Isabela is isolated from Southern Isabela by a narrow, barren, volcanic isthmus that will impede the
passage of goats. A monitoring system will be established to ensure no isolated strays succeed in crossing this
barrier. Contols will gradually reduce populations in southern Isabela leading to their subsequent eradication.
20
Project proponents have discussed the campaign with local stakeholders. The following representatives of the
Isabela population have been contacted as part of this on-going outreach effort (mayor, port captain, primary and
secondary school directors, political representative, hunters, INGALA representative, GNPS/ CDRS field staff).
12
manage environmental threats to the Galapagos archipelago. An endowment fund (hereinafter
referred to as the fund) will be created, the proceeds of which will be used exclusively to address
conservation management priorities identified in the Management Plan for the Galapagos in a
manner consistent with specific provisions of the Special Law of the Galapagos. In the medium
term, the activities of the fund will be geared primarily to addressing the threat posed by invasive
species. Accordingly, the fund will provide incremental financing to cover the bio-invasion control
campaigns of the GNPS and CDF (as per their designated responsibilities under the Special Law).
However, the fund will be designed so as to allow its activities to be expanded, as necessary, to
address new conservation pressures, taking all precautions to avoid deleveraging baseline
commitments.
31.
A number of options have been considered for the design of the fund during the process of
project preparation, and in full consultation with the Government of Ecuador. Important
considerations include the need to 1] ensure the security of assets; 2] ensure that the fund functions
beyond direct Government control21; and 3] capitalize on the existence of the Darwin Scientific
Foundation (DSF), and the administrative and operational structures created to operate it. In view of
these, it was agreed that the DSF be restructured to serve as Trustee for the fund on behalf of the
Government of Ecuador. GEF contributions towards the corpus of the fund would be remitted under
the Terms of a Tri-partite Agreement to be negotiated between UNDP, the GoE and DSF, and which
will spell out the responsibilities of the Trustee for managing and administering the fund. This
arrangement will reduce the risk of attachment of the assets in the event of a default on Government
debt. To secure the assets against domestic currency fluctuation, inflation and other financial
turbulence, they will be held and invested offshore. [The arrangement will also allow the fund to
draw on offshore investment expertise and will, moreover, enhance the attractiveness of the
investment opportunity the fund provides to private and public donors.] A dedicated sub-account will
be created to hold the assets, and internationally credible asset managers and auditors will be
retained.
32.
To ensure that the DSF discharges its functions as Trustee effectively and independently, and
to increase national ownership of the Fund, a majority non-governmental governing Board will be
formed. This will include representatives from the Government of Ecuador (GNPS & MMA) and the
CDF, an Ecuadorian NGO, the private sector, and the donor community (to be designated by
UNDP). Finally, a Funds Operations Unit, to be staffed by an Executive Director, Accountant,
Monitoring Officer and Personal Assistant would be established within the offices of the CDF in
Ecuador. As the Fund will finance agreed management priorities specified in the Galapagos
Management Plan and is not an open-access window, the administrative responsibilities of the
Operations Unit will be smaller than would otherwise be necessary. The Operations Unit will be
responsible for maintaining local accounts, managing disbursements, supervising procurement,
monitoring interventions, including the use of funds, and preparing reports for the Board and for
donors.
33.
The proposed arrangements accommodate a large number of the recommendations arising
from the GEF study on trust funds (1997) as detailed in Annex H. These include 1] conservation
actions are addressable with the income from the fund; 2] there are good prospects for meeting the
proposed endowment targets22; 3] a supporting legal framework is in place (Ecuador already has laws
that allow charitable organisations to be exempt from tax); 4] internationally credible legal and
21
The need to ensure a majority non-Government interest in Environmental Funds was a specific
recommendation of the 1997 GEF Evaluation of Trust Funds (see Paragraph #27 of the Summary Report].
22
Project proponents have approached private individuals interested in preservation of the Galapagos for support.
13
financial institutions are located in Ecuador, and can provide an independent and quality service; 5]
several international NGOs and UNDP are willing and able to serve in a mentor capacity, as the
mechanism is operationalised; 6] administrative costs will be less that 20% of the net income from
assets in the sub-account; and 7] absorptive capacity exists for conservation activities to be funded
through the mechanism.
34.
The GEF would provide resources (totalling US$ 890,000) 1] to prepare the legal instruments
for the fund, set up the governance and administrative structures, create the Operations Unit, and
develop operational manuals and monitoring and evaluation procedures; 2] to cover a portion of the
in-country administrative costs of Operations Unit in years 1-5; and 3] for fund raising operations.
Due precautions will be taken against frustration of the objectives of the fund, through the design of
legal instruments, and by providing for the revocability of the fund to donors, including the GEF. The
legal instruments would be structured to guard against allocation of the proceeds of the fund towards
baseline activities, which would be partly financed through the return of tourist gate takings.
35.
The project would seek to capitalise the fund with assets of US$ 15 million. GEF resources
would be used to design and implement a two-step fund-raising campaign to reach this target, using
the network provided by the Friends of the Galapagos organisations23. The GEF would provide US$
5 million in financial capital, to be matched by US$ 2 for every dollar appropriated. These funds are
needed as seed capital to encourage other donors to contribute. GEF inputs would be contingent on
realisation of the following benchmarks by the end of year 4: 1] establishment of new bylaws and
governance structures for the DSF; 2] creation of the Operations Unit; 3] generation of matching
funds from non-GEF sources; and 4 formalisation of the tri-partite agreement between UNDP, GoE
and DSF regarding the duties and functions of the trustee24. These benchmarks would be subject to
independent authentication prior to the release of GEF resources into the fund. Fund-raising would be
undertaken through a three-year campaign contracted out by the CDF. A US$ 1 million challenge
grant has already been secured from UNF. This is being matched by US$ 1 million from private
sources. The remaining non-GEF capital inputs will be secured from wealthy private donors; tour
operators; and the CDF’s network of partner foundations, including the Frankfurt Zoological Society.
Output 5: An awareness and participation programme for bio-invasion control is developed.
44.
Existing capabilities for communication and public participation campaigns will be
strengthened with GEF, UNF and WWF funds to specifically include bio-invasion concerns and to
raise the awareness of residents and tourists on the danger this presents and on actions that they can
take to reduce it. IDB and GEF resources would be used to strengthen the capacity of GNPS and
CDF for sustained campaigns in the medium term and to produce didactic materials for public
participation in spearheading prevention efforts [10]. A permanent discussion forum will be
established with GEF and UNF funds, for interest groups whose lack of co-operation may have
negative implications for bio-invasion control. This will include farmers, food retailers, the tourism
industry, and cattle ranchers. The forum, modelled on the existing Participatory Management Board
of the Galapagos Marine Reserve, will be the means through which interest groups will have the
opportunity to communicate in a regulated environment in an effort to clarify perspectives, exchange
information, review policy initiatives and resolve differences. Forum meetings would be co-ordinated
by a facilitator, to be recruited by the GNPS. GEF funds will help establish community based
watchdog groups that will support archipelago-wide monitoring efforts for the detection of newly
23
Friends of Galapagos (FOG) organisations have 10,000 members and are independent but closely allied to CDF.
The organisations are based in USA, UK and Switzerland and provide approximately 0.2 million annually to CDF.
24
The draft agreement will be shared with the GEF Secretariat for comment prior to finalisation.
14
introduced species, or sudden population explosions of previously introduced invasive species. They
will also fund periodic socio-economic surveys to provide continual feedback on the attitude of
resident towards bio-invasion control and the effectiveness of the various communication campaigns.
Output 6: A bio-invasion overlay developed for regional planning with a set of guidelines and
instruments that ensure that sector development fully addresses invasive species control.
45.
A bio-invasion management overlay will be developed with funding from the GEF and the
IDB, AECI, UNDP, UNFPA and private enterprises to provide a complement of policy guidelines,
principles and procedures for those sectors contributing to the establishment and propagation of
invasive species. These include the infrastructure, agriculture, transport, and tourism sectors, and
settlement planning, and waste management, with a specific focus on the agricultural and tourist
sectors. Legal backing for the reviews is provided by the SLG. The guidelines would form the basis
upon which INGALA, as per article 6 of the SLG, would establish development policies. In
accordance with new national planning practices, these guidelines will be developed through a
participatory process involving all relevant stakeholders. This will be followed by a technical phase
in which hired specialists, working in conjunction with INGALA, will develop policy alternatives
that will be fine-tuned following public consultations and the public forum created under Output 5.
46.
The ecological, economic and social viability of different agricultural management and
development policies will be evaluated to define the most appropriate strategy for bio-invasion
control. A set of incentives and penalties to facilitate the implementation of the most feasible strategy
will be designed including, inter alia,:- strengthened technical assistance schemes; the revision of
importation duties to enable locally produced goods to compete with imported goods; tariff
reductions for biodiversity friendly technologies; fiscal incentives for purchasing inputs through
certified importers; land-purchasing schemes and increased land taxes for idle land. Once identified,
priority elements of the overlay strategy will be implemented, with funding from other financiers.
47.
The tourism sector will also receive additional attention through a UNDP and IDB funded
evaluation of different scenarios (locally-based, cruise, sport-oriented) to determine their effects on
bio-invasion control and to ensure that actions taken to improve competitiveness 25 will not increase
the risk of bio-invasion. A code of ethics, including reliance on locally produced food and
conservation friendly products, will be developed for tourism operators and support services
mobilised, drawing on private sector resources and through a self-funded green certification scheme.
48.
The bio-invasion management overlay will be highly cost-effective as it will re-orient
sectoral expenditure estimated at approximately US$ 25 million over the life of the project and
considerably more in the long-term. This effectiveness will be increased further by IDB funded
activities to raise INGALA’s overall capacity for planning through the provision of specific training
and up-dated equipment. GEF resources will facilitate implementation of the bio-invasion overlay
by:- (i) designing a bio-invasion risk-assessment procedure to be applied during the appraisal of
development projects; (ii) developing a system of incentives, and penalty mechanisms 26; and (iii)
strengthening the existing Galapagos Unit in the Ministry of the Environment to better ensure that
new Galapagos related projects, often negotiated in Quito, follow these policy guidelines. The unit
will have the added responsibility of co-ordinating associated donor sponsored interventions.
25
26
The government is currently seeking to improve the competitiveness of a range of sectors in Galapagos Province.
Drawing on the results of the survey in output 2 and planned baseline monitoring of socio-economic parameters.
15
49.
End of Project Situation: At project closure, Ecuador would have the ability and mechanisms
to efficiently address the permanent threat of bio-invasion to the Galapagos, that currently endangers
this vital world heritage site. A body of knowledge would be available with which to plan, and
deliver, cost-effective and feasible control interventions across the archipelago and to leverage nonGEF investments for this task in the future. A set of adaptive management mechanisms would be
available to ensure that interventions are continually improved as new methods and technologies
become available to managers, and existing funding mechanisms would be strengthened to sustain
the bio-invasive management programmes of CDF and the GNPS. Regional and sectoral
development would be oriented to more fully comply with bio-invasion control and local
communities would be more aware of the bio-invasive threat and actions they can take to abate it.
50.
Furthermore, substantial immediate benefits to endangered biodiversity will have accrued.
Populations of 66% of the endemic vertebrates, including half the remaining giant tortoises, and 40%
of the endemic vascular plants of Galapagos, would be freed from the negative effects of feral goats
–considered by scientists to cause and sustain greater damage to natural habitats than any other
invasive species. The feral goat population of the entire archipelago would be reduced by over 50%
and conditions established for total eradication of this species over ensuing years. Archipelago wide
eradication of thirty plants would have been achieved. Eradication of a further five animal and five
plant invasive species from five islands would have relieved pressure on endemic species in these
localities and populations of four invasive species would be controlled on an additional seven islands.
Finally, critical lessons will have been learnt that could be replicated not only within the Galapagos
but also throughout the world, thus helping to curb the threat of bio-invasion is small island habitats.
51.
Project Beneficiaries: The global community would be the foremost beneficiary of project
activities, which will secure the extraordinary existence and recreational values of the Galapagos
Islands by building Ecuador´s capacity to control the most urgent threat to the Islands’ ecological
integrity. By designing and piloting systems for invasive species control, the project will also benefit
Ecuador’s national and local-level protected area management and research institutions,
communities, NGOs, schools and residents with a stake in conservation objectives. By overcoming
barriers to invasive species control, the project will, over the medium to longer-term, serve a wider
range of national beneficiaries that directly or indirectly derive livelihoods from the tourism industry.
No tangible short-term benefits to these stakeholders are expected, as tourism rests largely on the
survival of a few charismatic species and populations—not currently under severe threat from
invasive species. However, as the threat from invasive species grows, there is a danger of ecological
knock-on effects, as well as a risk that the perception of the Islands as a pristine destination in key
tourist markets will suffer. Both outcomes would have negative long-term effects on this industry.
52.
Stakeholder Participation: The proposed project was developed following extensive
stakeholder consultations with representatives of national and local governmental institutions, NGOs
and sectoral associations during the PDF A and B phases. The project addresses concerns identified
as priorities by local residents and formalised in the SLG, thus facilitating broad-based support
during implementation. The unusually high level of community involvement in decision-making
processes that characterises the Galapagos will favour broad-based participation. This is important,
as resolution of the invasive species problem will require especially high levels of stakeholder
participation. Participatory approaches are reflected in the strategy proposed for the project, which
includes participatory planning processes, consensus-building mechanisms and the strict coordination of institutions funding activities and projects in Galapagos through the active involvement
of the MA. The INGALA will also play a critical role in facilitating this co-ordination as it integrates
16
a wide range of sectors in its governing council27. Stakeholder participation in the arena of bioinvasion management will increase over time as community members are empowered by a deeper
understanding of the dangers of invasive species and a broader knowledge of specific ways they can
collaborate in mitigating the threat. This will be further reinforced by a set of incentives and
appropriate penalties for inducing best practices and compliance with new management controls.
53.
Eligibility under the CBD: The Project is fully consistent with the CBD and will contribute to
Article 8 on conservation in situ, specifically item 8(h), which calls on countries to “...prevent the
introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or
species”. As part of the strategy to address invasive species, the project will include the development
of guidelines to better manage protected areas, restore degraded ecosystems and regulate the
processes that have a significant effect on biological diversity, thus addressing items (b), (f) and (i) of
Article 8 respectively. The project will also include monitoring, research, public awareness and
participation activities and as such is compliant with articles 7(b),10 (d),13 (a),12(b). Furthermore, it
closely follows CoP/CBD guidance decision IV/1c on alien species28. By focusing on the endemic
biological diversity of geographically and evolutionary isolated ecosystems, adopting a precautionary
and ecosystem approach, informing the public on the dangers posed by alien species and undertaking
public education and awareness campaigns, the project also pursues the recommendations of
Decision SBTTA/4/L.2 that provides guiding principles for preventing impacts from alien species.
54.
Eligibility for GEF Financing and Operational Programme fit: The project focuses on the
abatement of the major threat to biodiversity and evolutionary processes in a globally unique ecoregion. It will cover the incremental costs of strengthening the long-standing commitment of Ecuador
to biodiversity conservation in Galapagos, designing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for
controlling invasive species at a time when biodiversity loss is still low and habitat degradation
reversible. It is consistent with national conservation priorities, will achieve the participation of a
range of stakeholders and provide valuable lessons that can be replicated in other parts of the world.
It will adopt an integrated ecosystem approach for the protection of small-island biodiversity. While
this includes coastal, marine and terrestrial components, the GEF intervention will focus on the
terrestrial habitats as these are under most imminent threat and retain the greatest portion of the
archipelago’s biological diversity. As terrestrial habitats of the Galapagos are dominantly xeric
shrubland, it will fall under OP #1, Arid, Semi-arid and Desert Ecosystems and address the crosscutting issue of land-degradation by eradicating and controlling species that damage fragile habitats.
55.
This initiative also complies with the UNDP programme of support to Ecuador falling under
the strategic area that includes the development of policies and strategies to address ecosystem
degradation and loss of biodiversity. Indeed, UNDP has previously funded a range of activities
related to conservation in the Galapagos including support to the Permanent Commission for the
Galapagos during the definition of the SLG and the Galapagos Marine Reserve management plan.
56.
Linkages with other GEF Projects: A GEF/World Bank pilot phase project to strengthen
Ecuadorian Protected areas has been completed recently. This included some activities for
Galapagos, funded largely through non-GEF sources. These activities had no bearing on invasive
species control. The GEF appropriated US$ 116,000 to strengthen surveillance of the marine reserve
27
The INGALA Council currently consists of representatives of the Ministries of environment, finance, defence,
trade, and industry, & fisheries & tourism, and also of municipal and provincial government authorities, of sectoral
associations such as tourism, artisanal fisheries and agriculture & livestock producers, and of the CEDENMA.
28
Amongst other things, the decision invites Parties to the Convention to address the issue of alien species for the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and to develop country driven projects to address the
problem. The decision requests the financial mechanism to provide adequate and timely support for those projects.
17
and train GNPS staff in natural resource protection. Block B resources have recently been approved
to design a second phase of this protected areas project. However, this will focus on mainland
protected areas and completely excludes Galapagos. The second phase will include a biodiversity
protection window as a component of the Ecuador Environment Trust Fund, but this will focus
exclusively on mainland protected areas, and will not provide funding for invasive species control.
57.
During the preparation of the present proposal, a GEF/World Bank medium size project was
approved for monitoring biological, social and economic parameters in the Galapagos. The project
will evaluate implementation of the Special Galapagos law and hence the main framework for the
sustainable development baseline in the province. Whilst this project does not directly address
invasive species control it will contribute indirectly to certain bio-invasion management activities
particularly through its biological and tourism monitoring components. The first will provide
information on ecosystem quality, key endangered species and the integrity of biological
communities. This will be useful to determine the effectiveness of bio-invasion control measures.
Co-funding resources have been leveraged through CDF to maintain monitoring beyond the two-year
period of the medium project. The second will provide data on compliance with the carrying capacity
limits of the tourist sites defined in the 1996 GNP Management Plan and on the presence of alien
species at these sites. This will feed into the predictive risk models to be developed through this
project. It will not directly reduce the proximate threats to biodiversity or focus on invasive species
control. Agreements have been reached to execute this monitoring project in close co-ordination with
the present proposal as part of a programmatic approach to conservation in the Galapagos. Finally,
close links will also be maintained with the global medium sized UNEP-SCOPE project that partially
supports some elements of the Global Invasives Species Program and identifies new tools for control.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
58.
Implementation and Execution Arrangements: The proposed project will be implemented
through UNDP under national execution modalities. The Ministry of the Environment will have
overall responsibility for the project. The Galapagos unit, housed in the Ministry’s Quito
headquarters, would be the official institutional focal point to facilitate operational procedures with
UNDP and other funding sources. The unit will be strengthened through the project to enable it to
effectively co-ordinate and programme the activities of the various project partners in the
archipelago. It would also be responsible for ensuring that any new initiatives in the Province fully
support invasive species control. At a general level, it will be responsible for project monitoring, and
in particular for ensuring that execution is fully congruent with national environmental policies.
59.
A project management unit (PMU) will be established in Galapagos to co-ordinate, supervise
and assist in project implementation. A general project manager, who will report directly to the
Galapagos Unit of the MA and UNDP at regular intervals, will head this. Two Project Officials will
assist the manager as well as an administrative assistant and a financial unit. Each official will be in
charge of supporting the implementation of three outputs, checking technical and financial aspects
and their consistency with operational plans, and assisting executing institutions to prepare technical
reports. The financial unit, composed of a financial director and an assistant, will carry out financial
monitoring and assist project executors to prepare financial reports and administer resources
according to UNDP rules. The PMU unit will count with the support of a technical advisory group
(TAG), charged with providing overall guidance on technical matters and consisting of international
experts in invasive species control and elected representatives of national environmental NGOs.
60.
A range of different governmental and non-governmental organisations will implement
activities in accordance with their respective expertise and mandates. To facilitate co-ordinated
18
action, one institution will be assigned lead responsibility for the management and implementation of
each output. A Galapagos based co-ordinator will be appointed for each output by the responsible
institution, and will take part in annual project programming activities, thus ensuring that coordinated planning and execution of outputs occurs. Once it is fully established SESA-Galapagos
would be responsible for Output 1, focusing on prevention measures. However, in the interim, GNPS
and CDF will manage this output with GNPS responsible for reporting. The CDFRS will be
responsible for control planning and research (Output 2). GNPS will be responsible for pilot projects
(Output 3), within the existing GNPS/CDF bi-institutional arrangement framework. The CDF would
have responsibility for trust fund development (Output 4), with the assistance of contracted expertise.
In view of the importance of the public outreach component, this will executed by a Directive
Council involving 4 institutions (GNPS, CFD, INGALA, Natura Foundation), whose Executive
Secretary will be the GNPS. Finally INGALA will be responsible for regional and sectoral planning.
61.
Specific arrangements have been made for the execution of the Isabela eradication pilot
project in view of its size and complexity. A GNPS-CDF bi-institutional arrangement was set-up in
1998 to plan this component. This is led by the Isabela Project Specialised Unit (IPSS) which will
handle both technical field operations and overall project management and report to directors of both
CDFRS and GNPS. To minimise administrative costs, equipment acquisition and financial
accounting for the Isabela project will be undertaken by the PMU’s financial unit. In order to
maintain linkages with other project outputs, the Isabela co-ordinator will be based within the PMU.
62.
The CDRS currently employs 118 people whereas the GNPS employs 145. An additional 1215 staff will be employed by these institutions in order to strengthen management controls on
invasive species. Human capital will be augmented by technical experts recruited on contract to
advise and help execute the management operations (i.e. helicopter pilots, sharp shooters, etc). The
UNDP office in Quito will handle the procurement of services and goods valued at more than US$
$50,000, sparing Galapagos based institutions of the inherent administrative burden. The CDRS
maintains offices on Santa Cruz island, and in the towns of San Cristobal and Villamil on other
islands. The GNPS maintains its headquarters on Santa Cruz island, but operates field offices in
San Cristobal, Villamil and Floreana. These offices will plan and execute conservation operations.
FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
63.
Incremental Costs: The GEF alternative, excluding all preparation costs, has been costed at
US$ 104.96 million over 6 years with a baseline expenditure of US$ 63.43 million. The incremental
cost of this, detailed in Annex A, is US$ 41.54 million. Of this amount, 56%, or US$ 23.24 million
would be provided by non-GEF sources. GEF would provide 44% of the incremental cost and
17.44% of total GEF Alternative. The budget is presented below by output and funding source:
PROJECT OUTPUTS
Output 1: Prevention
Output 2: Adaptive Management Mechanisms
Output 3: Management Option Pilot Projects
TOTAL
GEF (US$) Million
2.73
4.47
12.03
19
Co-financing (US$) Million
1.25 UNF
0.29
GoE
0.16
USAID
0.01
IDB
1.00
CDF
0.01
1.97 CDF
1.47
EU
0.34
WWF
0.70
7.98 CDF
1.80
GoE
0.88
UNF
1.37
PROJECT OUTPUTS
Output 4: Financial Sustainability
TOTAL
GEF (US$) Million
16.51 Capitalisation
Operations/
Fund Raising:
Output 5: Public awareness
Output 6: Sectoral Planning
TOTAL
1.50
4.30
41.54
5
Co-financing (US$) Million
CDF
0.09
UNF
1.08
Priv. Sect.
9.45
0.89
0.31 WWF
0.50
UNF
0.26
IDB
0.43
0.90 IDB
1.45
Priv. Sect.
0.65
AECI
1.00
UNDP
0.20
UNFPA
0.10
18.30
-
23.24
SUSTAINABILITY OF PROJECT RESULTS:
64.
As invasive species constitute a perpetual threat to biodiversity in oceanic archipelagos with
human populations, efforts to control their impact should be embedded within a framework that
guarantees sustained action. Ecuador has taken the hardest and most important step towards
establishing this framework by developing and adopting the Special Law for the Galapagos. By
taking the unprecedented measure of limiting human migration from its continental territory to the
archipelago, this law also directly addresses the most important root cause of the problem. Thus, the
legal framework for sustaining invasive species control is in place. The GEF alternative would
involve a one-time investment to develop the technical, managerial and operational framework for
this through an array of well planned capacity-building activities. These actions will take place
within an already comprehensive strategy for conservation provided through the marine and
territorial protected areas program. Furthermore, Ecuador has mobilised additional resources to raise
the present level of baseline activities to a more sustainable level, focusing on reinforcing marine
areas, strengthening fishing and tourism management and curbing future potential contamination.
65.
In addition to building this capacity for sustainability, specific abatement measures,
summarised below, have been designed to reduce the risks that could undermine project results.
RISK
RATING
1. Some populations
of endangered
species are beyond
hope of recuperation.
Medium
2. Control and
eradication efforts
may fail
Low
3. Feral goats may be
re-introduced in
northern Isabela
following successful
eradication;
Very
low
ABATEMENT MEASURES
On-going monitoring of the most threatened populations will provide a steady reading on
their status. Local institutions (GNPS, CDRS) have funding to execute temporary protective
measures (such as captive breeding and constructing enclosures for threatened vegetation),
and controlling introduced species responsible for threatening native populations, until the
comprehensive control system is successfully operationalised.
The pilot projects will evaluate and test different options to overcome key invasive species
management challenges, and will provide an important body of information to enable the
efficacy of management controls to be improved over time. Only successful strategies will be
adopted, thereby reducing the risks of future failure. An IS research programme is to be
established to develop prescriptive and predictive models, that will guide management efforts.
This will further reduce control failures in the long term. The pilot projects will benefit from
lessons learnt globally on IS control and project design fully incorporates expert inputs.
Goats were introduced to northern Isabela by sailors or crossed the 12 km isthmus from
southern Isabela or both. Physical reintroduction risk will be addressed through outreach and
enforcement operations. Reintroduction risks from the south are low due to the extremely
difficult intervening terrain in the isthmus, which provided an effective barrier to dispersion
for eighty years. All goats within the isthmus and immediately contiguous to it in southern
Isabela will be eradicated, removing populations with the cognitive skills to cross the isthmus
immediately. A permanent and comprehensive monitoring programme will be implemented
20
RISK
RATING
4. Improved viability
of agriculture may
increase
encroachment into
park areas
Low
5. The agricultural
sector remains weak,
disorganised and
unwilling or unable
to co-operate in the
management of
invasive species.
Medium
6. Residents do not
adopt measures to
reduce the probability
of new introductions.
7. A highly
disruptive climatic
event accelerates
invasive species
dispersal.
Medium
8. Tourism drops
significantly, with a
parallel reduction in
park entrance fee
revenue designated
for conservation
Low
High
ABATEMENT MEASURES
to intercept any movement of goats northwards. Furthermore, the long-term objective of the
GoE is to eradicate goats from southern Isabela, building on the knowledge and applying
models developed under this project..
The agricultural and livestock management strategies to be developed through the GEF
Alternative will include specific abatement measures to avoid increasing risks to parklands.
This will include increased monitoring of park limits in sensitive areas, establishing stricter
penalties for encroachment, and undertaking consensus-building for the new strategy through
the public forum set up in Output 5. The strategy may eventually allow the re-incorporation
of now-abandoned agricultural land into the National Park.
The agricultural zones are ‘hotspots’ for the establishment and propagation of introduced
species, predominantly plants. A failure on the part of the farming community to become part
of the solution would threaten the success of invasive species management. If this occurs, an
increasingly effective quarantine system (output1) would compensate the risk. Similarly,
agricultural strategies developed by INGALA (output 6), would mitigate the spread of
introduced species by developing specific policies and guidelines for abandoned agricultural
lands. Enabling policies or programmes supporting local produce over imported produce
would also generate a more effective use of all agricultural lands.
Given the relatively low total population of Galapagos (16,000), it is feasible to reach most
people through a variety of awareness and educational programs, incentives and
disincentives. The GEF project has been designed to maximise community participation in IS
management, and awareness activities will encourage necessary behaviour change.
El Niño events may improve conditions for the successful dispersal of species already
introduced, putting at risk a greater proportion of Galapagos native biodiversity. The GEF
alternative will support an early warning system to help determine which introduced species
are most likely to be favoured by El Niño conditions, and which native species are most
threatened. With such knowledge, advanced preparation (short-term protection measures,
monitoring etc) would seek to mitigate the negative effects of the El Niño before they occur.
The GNP relies heavily on entrance fee revenues for its running costs. Should these drop
significantly, the Park may face significant budget reductions. Redistribution of budget
allocations to ensure the continuation of priority programmes would be possible. The trust
fund mechanisms to be set up under Output 4 would provide emergency funding for
particularly crucial IS control activities. As environmental conditions in the Galapagos are
still exceptional, visitation is expected to run at current levels for the foreseeable future.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
66.
Monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken at different levels as summarised below.
 Overall generic monitoring and evaluation will be undertaken by the Galapagos Unit in the MA,
and UNDP. This will entail the annual evaluation of overall project implementation, including the
revision of the annual progress reports and proposed operational plans. National environmental
policy developments and advances in invasive control at the global level, reported through the
TAG29, will be used as a standard for evaluation at this level. Indicators presented in the Project
Planning Matrix and a set of more detailed and specific parameters to be developed by the Project
Manager at project commencement will be used to gauge the quality, progress and impact of
activities. In addition to these processes, the project will follow standard UNDP project evaluation
procedures such as the Tripartite Project Review, Programme Performance Evaluation Reports, MidTerm and Final Independent Reviews as well as the annual GEF Project Implementation Review.
 The Project Manager will lead specific monitoring of implementation progress. Annual reviews
of implementation progress for each output will be jointly undertaken by the PMU and the project
29
Advances made in the GISP and the related GEF medium project will be channelled through the TAG. This will
also facilitate the flow of lessons learnt through the project to other bio-invasion control programmes world- wide.
21
output co-ordinators. These will be used to produce the annual reports for the umbrella monitoring
described above. Following the annual reviews, joint-programming exercises will develop coordinated and fine-tuned annual operational plans for each output and each funding source. This
programming will be fine-tuned using inputs from evaluation exercises and outreach operations.
 Specific, intensive, monitoring of the Isabela goat- eradication pilot project will be undertaken in
view of its size and unique nature. This will take the form of independent evaluations over the
course of the eradication to fine-tune eradication procedures and ensure the sustainability of results.

Broader stakeholder assessment will be ensured by establishing a continual two-way flow of
information through the project manager with the INGALA council, which meets 4-6 times a year,
and the public fora to be set up through the project. The social surveys undertaken in Output 5 will
serve to fine-tune social outreach activities and inform project managers of stakeholder attitudes.
22
LIST OF ANNEXES
Annex A:
Annex B:
Annex C:
Annex C1
Incremental Cost Assessment
Logical Framework- Project Planning Matrix
STAP Roster Technical Review
Response to STAP Comments
OPTIONAL ANNEXES: on file at the GEF Secretariat and available through the GEF website.
Annex D:
Focal Point Endorsement
Annex E:
Summary of Biodiversity Provides supplementary information on the archipelago’s biological
diversity, highlighting the relationship between endemic species, island size and isolation, and
summarising the impacts of introduced species on biodiversity.
Annex F:
Threats Assessment. Describes threats to biodiversity in the Galapagos, their root causes, and
the steps to be taken through the GEF alternative to mitigate them.
Annex G:
Eradication, Control and Mitigation Pilot Projects. Summarises the contribution of these to
solving the key invasive species management dilemmas, and details the Isabela goat eradication
project.
Annex H
Bio-invasion Funding Mechanisms. Describes funding deficits for long-term bio-invasion
management, evaluates the adequacy of trust fund mechanisms to overcome these, the potential
for success and the steps to be taken through the GEF Alternative to expand and capitalise the
existing Darwin Science Foundation.
Annex I:
Institutional Summaries. Provides and overview of the mandates and capacities of local
institutions
Annex J:
Project Categorisation Sheet
Annex K:
List of References
23
ANNEX A: INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS
1. Broad Development Goals
1.1
Ecuador has made significant strides towards protecting its rich biological diversity. The national
government is currently framing a National Biodiversity Strategy, as required by the CDB, which it ratified in
1993, and is in the process of approving a Special Law for Biodiversity and Sustainable Forestry. National
polices place a high emphasis on in situ conservation— particularly in areas of high species endemism and
scientific value. The Galapagos islands fall within these priority categories and have long been the focus of
national conservation efforts, as demonstrated by the creation of the Galapagos National Park in 1959.
Ecuador’s Constitution affords the Galapagos with a special status and provides for a special administrative
regime which restricts the right to immigrate, own land, and trade to safeguard the Islands’ ecological integrity.
Formalised in March 1998 through the “Special Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Development in the
Province of Galapagos” (SLG), the regime provides the sustainable development framework for this project.
2. Global Environmental Objectives
2.1.
The Galapagos Islands occupy an outstanding place in the global conservation stakes due to their
exceptional flora and fauna and status as a living-laboratory for the study of evolutionary processes. Extensive
conservation efforts have largely protected the Islands, and over 95% of the original species composition
remains. However, a dramatic increase in colonisation by exotic species over the last twenty years is gradually
diminishing the isolation that was responsible for the evolution of such a unique biological heritage. Although
Ecuador has made the control of these invasive species a priority, the permanent and complex nature of this
threat demands a control system well beyond that which can be provided by the human, technical and financial
resources available in the country. The proposed project would provide the support that Ecuador needs to design
a control system, and set-up institutional and financial mechanisms for its implementation. Without this support,
control measures will be maintained at sub-optimal levels. With the recent passage of the SLG, there is now a
unique opportunity to establish an invasive species control system to confront current, emergent and future
threats to biota from bio-invasion while impacts are still largely reversible and magnitude of cost relatively low.
3.
Baseline
3.1.
A summary of the threats to the biodiversity of the Galapagos is provided in Annex 6. The introduction,
dispersal and propagation of alien species coinstutes the most acute threat. The current invasive species control
system is insufficient to effectively address this problem due to several factors, outlined in the main text. A
number of baseline interventions would occur in a business as usual scenario that will address this threat and its
determinants. These are costed over 6 years and are described below together with a summary of interventions
planned to address other threats to biodiversity that are needed to execute an ecosystem approach to
conservation.
Prevention Measures: Until recently, the Ministry of Agriculture through its Provincial Directorate in the
Galapagos, undertook cargo inspections at entry ports in order to protect the quality of livestock and agricultural
products in the islands and the health of the human population. A new quarantine system, known as SICGAL,
was designed (sunk costs30 of 0.5 million) to expand previous inspection measures. This was approved in May,
1999 and baseline expenditure, estimated at US$ 3.65 million, has been committed for its implementation. This
comprises US$ 2.06 m from SLG park entrance fees provisions, covering partial costs of staff, equipment and
training; US$ 1.24m from CDF, through a variety of donors, to cover a limited public outreach, information
and conflict resolution programme on SICGAL; and US$ 0.35m from USAID for limited technical support and
training to set-up the first stage of SICGAL implementation. These investments will increase protection beyond
30
Sunk costs are included in relevant sections to indicate previous efforts but are not included in the cost of the baseline
A- 1
levels needed for human and agricultural well-being. However, they are not sufficient to fully contain the threat
of new species introductions into the archipelago or avoid dispersal of aggressive invasives between the islands.
Planning and Research for Total Control of Invasive Species. The CDF research station has for many years
maintained a research programme to enhance scientific understanding of the Galapagos’ ecosystems and provide
essential information needed for biodiversity management. This will contribute to, but does not focus per se on
invasive species control. Furthermore, current research activities do not form part of a well-funded, long-term
programme and available infrastructure and equipment is already fully committed. Baseline resources totalling
US$ 8.16 million have been committed to continue the current level of conservation research. Of this sum, US$
0.57m would be appropriated by GNPS , US$ 7.26 by CDF and US$ 0.33 by GEF through a two year medium
size project for general biological monitoring. While significant, this investment is simply insufficient to
generate the quality and quantity of scientific information required for setting priorities and adapting
management.
Control and Eradication: Over the last 20 years, CDF and GNPS have implemented a number of small-scale but
successful control and eradication campaigns on small islands, targeting invasive species with low populations
and using methods that had already been tested in other parts of the world. The GNPS also undertakes some IS
monitoring of particularly sensitive areas in the park and some agricultural zones providing on-the-spot control
of invasive species as they appear. Baseline investment to maintain this level of action amounts to US$11.75
million with US$ 6.41 m from the GNPS (SLG park entrance fee provisions and Government national budget
for a percentage of the staff) and US$ 5.34m channelled through CDF from a variety of donors. This is
insufficient to control most populations or overcome the unique management challenges that certain species
present.
Sustainable Funding Mechanisms. The CDF has two endowments totalling US$ 3 million (Darwin Scientific
Foundation with assets of US$ 2.5 million and a small Luxembourg-based foundation) that provides
approximately 4% of the annual budgetary resources of the CDF. The CDF relies heavily on soft income
(project-specific, short-term funding), limiting the stability of the long-term research programs required to
develop control options. The GNPS has a guaranteed income from SGL provisions and national budget
resources that covers the majority of the operations and maintenance costs of its present level of IS control. This
does not cover operational costs of control campaigns throughout the archipelago. There would be no funding in
the baseline scenario for quick-delivery emergency control operations or to encourage the participation of a
broader range of local institutions and organisations in control efforts. Expenditure is costed at US$ 3.0 million
from CDF (that corresponds to the seed capitalisation of the DSF).
Community Participation Local communities are well-aware of the importance of conserving the islands.
However, there are few specific measures to permit community participation in the invasives control effort. The
GNPS has radio and television channels, a communication and education programme for teachers, agriculturists,
tourist operators, and students and an extremely effective network of park guides. Equipment is outdated and
activities are often suspended due to inadequate funding. CDF also runs a public outreach programme that uses
the print, radio and television media for information dissemination, and orchestrates conservation and solid
waste management campaigns through community action groups. Despite these efforts, community awareness
of the risk of bio-invasions is low. Baseline appropriations to continue the afore-mentioned efforts are costed at
US$ 3. 45 million— comprised of US$ 0.32m from the GNPS, US$ 2.84m channelled through the CDF from a
variety of donors and GEF US$ 0.29 through the Medium project to undertake socio-economic monitoring.
More specific and targeted public outreach programs will be required if the participation of communities in
invasive species management is to be engineered.
Regional and Sectoral Planning . Until recently regional and sectoral plans for Galapagos were developed by
INEFAN from its central headquarters in Quito with little input from local institutions, which in any case lacked
the mandate or resources to ensure that development activities were married with conservation efforts. The SLG
A- 2
calls for participatory planning at the regional and local levels and assigns this responsibility to INGALA. This
institution is currently being restructured to assume its new mandate. Baseline investments for delivering these
expanded responsibilities are costed at US$ 1.21 million, of which US$ 0.99m are derived from the SLG
provisions and US$ 0.22 through the GEF medium project for monitoring tourism parameters and to enhance
information flow to a range of institutions, improving overall conservation planning and management.
However, this will not sufficiently cover the cost of integrating invasive species control in sector strategies.
Contamination. Solid and liquid waste management in the inhabited isl;ands of the Galapagos contributes to
localised but growing contamination and habitat destruction. It also constitutes a root cause of the invasive
species threat as waste disposal sites can provide a locus for the propagation and dispersal of exotic species.
Municipalities undertake limited basic sanitation measures to reduce these threats, which have been costed at
US$ 2.7 million over six years. Further baseline investments, costed at US$ 7.18m will be made to provide more
effective solid-waste disposal through the IDB-funded Galapagos Environmental Management Programme.
Natural Resource Management. GNPS is responsible for natural resource management in the Galapagos and
with support from CDF has extended protection to over 97% of the Galapagos landmass for the last forty years.
The sunk cost of the protection program is estimated at US$45 million over the last five years alone. This
includes GNP and GRM up-keep and surveillance costs, the development of regulatory norms and instruments
to control illegal logging, hunting and over-exploitation of specific resources, and recovery campaigns for
critically low endemic species populations and habitats. Baseline expenditure for natural resource management
is costed at US$ 23.33 million. This consists of US$ 8.0m for GNP and GMR surveillance (percentage SLG
provisions for the GNPS for GNP and GMR; and SLG provision for the Ecuadorian navy for GMR
surveillance); US$ 2.35 for surveillance of natural resource exploitation in the GMR channelled through CDF to
the GNPS; US$ 7.12m from the EMG-IDB programme for implementing priority actions of the GMR
management plan and for GNPS institutional strengthening; US$ 0.75m from USAID for increasing local
participation in GMR management;US$ 4.0 million from a AECI–funded Galapagos project for improving
tourism and artisanal fisheries sustainability; and US$ 0.1 million through the GEF MSP to monitor fishing.
4. GEF Alternative
4.1
The baseline will generate substantial global conservation benefits by maintaining much of the
Galapagos as a protected area. The GEF alternative would cover the major programmatic gaps identified in the
baseline by providing a one-time investment to strengthen the framework for invasive species control. Through
targeted eradication and control campaigns, it would also provide immediate relief to endangered fauna and
flora in over half of the archipelago’s landmass. The project activities have been grouped into six outputs.
Output 1: Prevention services will be consolidated and expanded to better protect biodiversity and natural
evolutionary processes. These enhanced services will not produce tangible short-term domestic benefits and are
complementary, required for biodiversity protection rather than domestic needs (i.e. maintaining human health
standards and agricultural and livestock quality). In the much longer-term, some increased domestic benefits
may occur by reducing the risks to populations of charismatic species that are important for the tourism industry.
In view of this, non-GEF resources totalling US$ 1.48 million have been leveraged for this component, out of a
total cost of US$ 2.73 million. Co-financing is partitioned as follows:- UNF, US$ 0.29 million for an emergency
rapid response team and acquiring communication equipment for SICGAL; GoE US$ 0.16m for up-grading
monitoring capacities in ‘hotspots’ for species introduction; USAID, US$ 0.01 for equipment for SICGAL;
IDB, US$ 1.0 for equipment for SICGAL and training inspectors and technicians; and CDF US$ 0.01 to
complement SICGAL training. GEF resources, amounting to US$ 1.25 m will contribute to the purchase and
development of basic equipment and infrastructure, strengthen co-ordination of quarantine actions and fund a
study to assess how the transport system may be adapted to reduce the risk of species dispersal between islands.
Output 2: Planning and Research will be developed to produce the scientific information required to develop
A- 3
and implement management controls against invasive species. This would result principally in global benefits by
providing scientific knowledge that raises controls beyond that needed to protect economic sectors such as
agriculture. Short to medium term domestic benefits to tourism would also be intangible. Current visitation
levels are attributed to the still outstanding environmental quality of the archipelago and the image of its role in
the history of natural sciences, rather than detailed knowledge of sub-species, races, population dynamics and
ecosystem structure and function. The total cost of the output is US$ 4.47 million. Despite its largely
complementary nature, co-funding of US$ 2.51m has been secured. This is partitioned as follows.- CDF, US$
1.47 m for a scientists exchange programme on IS management, for a research and planning unit with
infrastructure and equipment to develop predictive and prescriptive control models and extend the biological
monitoring beyond the GEF medium project end; EU US$ 0.34m for complementing the IS planning system;
WWF US$ 0.7 m for research into habitat restoration and development of new eradication methods. The GEF
resources amounting to US$ 1.97 m will complement co-funding resources and some of the running costs of the
unit.
Output 3: Demonstration projects will be implemented to overcome barriers and management challenges that
currently impede more effective control and eradication action. Tangible short-term domestic benefits are not
expected from the majority of these demonstration projects, although in the long-term the increased institutional
capacity that they provide will enhance the protection of the islands. Substantial resources have been leveraged
as co-funding that more than offset any long-term domestic benefits that may be derived from this component.
The output is costed at US$ 12.03. Co-funding amounts to US$ 4.05, partitioned as follows: CDF US$ 1.8m for
complementing the feral goat and plant demonstration projects; GoE US$ 0.88m for complementing the feral
goat project and UNF US$ 1.37 for specific demonstration projects targeting the fire ant and biting black fly.
GEF resources will total US$ 7.98m, channelled mainly to the Isabela project that, in addition to strengthening
the capacity for mega-size population management, will deliver immediate and substantial global benefits by
removing feral goat pressure from populations of 66% of the endemic vertebrates and 40% of the endemic
vascular plants of Galapagos. The eradication of these populations will not produce any measurable domestic
benefits. Tourism levels are not effected by the presence of this mega-population. Very few visitors to the
archipelago are aware of the goat problem. Moreover, visitation to northern Isabela is strictly limited to a very
low number of tourists and there is only one small landing site and visitor area that could be maintained free
from goats by alternative, much more economic, options if the objective were to sustain tourism rather than
biodiversity. No avoided costs are expected as a result of habitat restoration post goat eradication, as this part of
the island is uninhabited and no environmental services are afforded to local populations from it. Any minor
effect on local livelihoods following goat eradication will be compensated for by activities designed to promote
land based tourist initiatives in southern Isabela, an initiative that will be 100%co-financed (see output 6).
Output 4. A permanent financial mechanism for conservation in the Galapagos will be established. This
mechanism (which, over the medium term will provide incremental funding to sustain bio-invasion controls)
will be complementary to baseline activities and will ensure the sustained impact of the larger GEF Alternative.
(Further details of baseline funding arrangements are provided in Annex H). The Alternative is costed at US$
16.51. The GEF will appropriate US$ 0.89 million to create the necessary governance and administrative
structures need to operate the fund, and implement a campaign to raise capital for the corpus. The GEF would
also provide a US$ 5 million capital grant to the fund. Co-funding amounts to US$ 10.62 million and is
partitioned as follows: UNF, US$ 1.08 challenge grant to start-up capitalisation. Private Sector US$ 9.45 million
divided as follows: US$ 0.45 m to support the Galapagos International Relations Unit, US$ 1.0m, for which
negotiations are well advanced, to match the UNF challenge grant, US$ 8.00 m to be leveraged through the
fund-raising campaign. The CDF will allocate US$ 0.09m for strengthening the fund-raising capacities of the
FOG organisations.
Output 5: A participation and awareness strategy for invasive species control will be developed. The total cost
of this will be US$ 1.50m of which US$ 1.19m will be from non-GEF sources:- UNF US$ 0.26m for developing
the communication strategy and supporting its implementation; WWF US$ 0.5m for implementing the
A- 4
communication and awareness campaign and IDB US$ 0.43 m for strengthening the capacity of GNPS and CDF
to sustain campaigns in the medium term. The GEF would contribute a total of US$ 0.31m to complement cofunding sources and assure the continuation of the monitoring effort beyond the two year life of the Medium
sized project, until the DSF is fully restructured and can sustain this action independently.
Output 6: An invasive species management overlay for regional and sectoral planning will be developed
through local participatory planning methods to ensure IS control measures are incorporated into sectoral
activities. Total costs of this output are US$ 4.30 million. To offset any long term domestic benefits that may
arise from this component co-funding of US$ 3.4 million has been secured, partitioned as follows:- IDB US$
1.45 m for developing I.S waste management polices, evaluating locally-based tourism demonstrations in nonprotected areas, and training INGALA staff for improved planning; UNDP 0.2 m for competitiveness and
sustainability studies in the tourism sector; Private sector, US$ 0.65 million to develop and implement a
certification system for tourism ventures; AECI, US$ 1 million to implement priority actions identified in the
agricultural strategy; UNFPA, US$ 0.1 million for the design and application of population policies. GEF
resources for this output would amount to a total of US$ 0.90 million to complement co-funding resources for
developing the I.S overlay, and ensuring the co-ordination of the wide range of initiatives relating to the
Galapagos
5. Incremental Costs and Benefits
The systems boundary for the project is defined geographically by the Galapagos archipelago including
landmasses and marine areas of the GMR as well as the main exit points on the continent that require prevention
measures for successful invasive species control. The temporal scope of analysis is six years. The thematic
boundary includes the various interventions required for invasive species control and to address other threats to
biodiversity in the Galapagos. The cost of the baseline scenario is estimated at US$ 63.43 million. The cost of
the GEF alternative, excluding preparation and administration, has been costed at US$ 104.96. US$ 18.30
million are requested from the GEF through this proposal. This represents 17.43% of the total GEF alternative,
and will yield sizeable and almost entirely global benefits. Domestic benefits of the GEF alternative would be
largely intangible and occur over the medium and long-term, nevertheless substantial co-funding amounting to
US$ 23.24 million have been leveraged to cover project costs. Considerably larger resources are expected to be
levered in the long-term (> 10years) through the Trust Fund and fund-raising campaign.
Incremental Cost Matrix
Component
Output 1:
Prevention
Cost
Cost (in US$
Category
million)
GoE/SGL= 2.06
Sustainable
Development USAID= 0.35
CDF= 1.24
Baseline
Total = 3.65
GEF
Alternative
Increment
Total = 6.38
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
Reduced rates of IS introduction from the
continent increases agricultural &
livestock protection. Overall quality of
environment remains high enough to
sustain tourist visitation levels but
invasive species threat not fully
contained.
Agricultural and livestock qualities
protected. Long-term indirect benefits to
tourism may be generated by maintaining
the image of the Galapagos as a livinglaboratory for the study of evolutionary
processes.
Introduction of IS reduced from rates of
previous decade thus providing increased
protection to endemic biodiversity,
particularly at the habitat and between
species levels, but high dispersal of IS within
and between islands continues to threaten
within species biodiversity.
Reduced risks of colonisation by new exotic
species leads to improved long-term survival
of endemic species & habitats. Reduced
dispersal of invasive species within and
between islands enhances the protection of
within species biodiversity.
GEF = 1.25
UNF = 0.29
GoE = 0.16
USAID = 0.01
IDB = 1.00
CDF = 0.01
Total = 2.67
A- 5
Component
Output 2:
IS Adaptive
Management
Mechanisms
Cost
Cost (in US$
Category
million)
GoE= 0.57
Sustainable
Development CDF=7.26
GEF.Med = 0.33
Baseline
Total = 8.16
GEF
Alternative
Sustainable
Development
Baseline
GEF =1.97
CDF = 1.47
EU = 0.34
WWF = 0.70
Total = 4.37
GoE/SGL= 6.41
CDF=5.34
Total=11.75
GEF
Alternative
Total = 23.78
Increment
Output 3:
IS Control and
Eradication
Pilot Projects
Increment
Output 4:
Sustainable
Funding
Mechanisms
Total = 12.63
Sustainable
Development
Baseline
GEF
Alternative
Increment
Sustainable
Output 5:
IS Participation Development
and Awareness Baseline
Outreach
GEF = 7.98
UNF = 1.37
GoE = 0.88
CDF = 1.80
Total = 11.63
CDF=3.00
Total = 3.00
Total = 19.51
GEF = 5.89
UNF = 1.08
CDF = 0.09
Pr. Sector = 9.45
Total = 17.12
GoE=0.32
CDF=2.84
GEFMed=0.29
Total= 3.45
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
Scientific research on Galapagos
ecosystem’ supports conservation
efforts and IS control at levels to
sustain tourist & agricultural sectors.
Lack of systematic IS planning and
research leads to poorly co-ordinated,
site-specific, less effective control of
IS & continued pressure on endemic
biodiversity
Improved IS research permits
continued and enhanced protection of
agricultural and livestock activities and
increases long-term protection of
ecosystem integrity.
Advanced knowledge of the Galapagos
and its evolutionary processes enhances
the conservation of its ecosystems. Sitespecific advances in knowledge occurs.
Overall IS threat increases as the absence
of sounder scientific & planning basis
correlates with ineffective IS management
Control efforts remain site and species
specific. Tourist visitation sites remain
free of most aggressive invasives;
agricultural land is partially protected but
IS management remains weak
Improved IS control and better long-term
protection of terrestrial and coastal
ecosystems in the Galapagos
Some populations of endemic species are
protected and natural habitats recovered but
in overall terms, IS increase in number and
existing populations expand; rapid habitat
destruction in northern Isabela
Major challenges of IS management
overcome permitting more effective long
term control of invasives. Immediate relief
provided to populations of 66% of endemic
vertebrates and 40% plants.
Provisions of sustained resources
maintain quarantine services and
protected areas at levels for domestic
needs. Lack of secure resources for
research, planning &control operations
causes fluctuations in IS efforts &
increases impacts on biodiversity
Sustained resources for operations
improve IS control management; reduced
dependence of CDF on soft resources
guarantees more stable research
programmes.
IS management sustained at a site-specific
level. Limited reduction of the IS threat in
overall terms although the sustained action of
GNPS & CDF in the protected areas
provides some protection to global
biodiversity values
Levels of environmental awareness in
local communities facilitate eco-tourism
but do not contribute to IS control and
high dependence on imported goods
increases risk of species introductions.
Lack of awareness causes resistance to
costly eradication campaigns.
Continued local support for general
conservation action but low levels of public
participation and awareness on IS issues
reduces effectiveness of control and
eradication campaigns
A- 6
Enhanced IS management within a sound,
well programmed & cost-effective
framework provides more comprehensive
protection of Galapagos’ global
biodiversity values and provides global
lessons
Provision of sustained resources keeps IS
management at enhanced level, facilitates
replication of demonstrations projects
throughout archipelago, and broadens range
of institutions active in IS control all
correlating to more sustained protection of
global values
Component
Cost
Category
GEF
Alternative
Total = 4.95
Sustainable
Development
Baseline
GEF = 0.31
WWF=0.50
UNF = 0.26
IDB = 0.43
Total = 1.49
GoE/SGL= 0.99
GEFMed=0.22
Total = 1.21
GEF
Alternative
Total =5.51
Increment
Output 6:
IS overlay for
regional and
sectoral
planning
Cost (in US$
million)
Increment
Prevention
Water
Pollution
GEF =0.90
IDB = 1.45
Pri.Sec.=0.65
AECI=1.00
UNDP=0.20
UNFPA=0.1
Total =4.26
Loc.Gov=2.70
IDB=7.18
Total = 9. 88
of Sustainable
Development
Baseline
0
GEF
Alternative
0
Increment
GoE/SGL=8.00
Natural
Sustainable
resource
Development IDB=7.12
USAID = 0.75
Management
Baseline
CDF=2.35
AECI= 4.00
GEFMed=0.10
Total = 22.33
TOTAL
COST
Increment
Sustainable
Development
Baseline
GEF
Alternative
Increment
Domestic Benefit
Global Benefit
Improved awareness of invasive species
threat and long-term relationship to
agriculture and tourism increases
acceptance of any new importation
duties and fee-systems levied for IS
control services
Increased public participation enhances IS
management, the success rates of eradication
campaigns, and facilitates the early detection
of new introductions. Prospects for sustained
IS control improved.
Increased local ownership and
participation in developmental processes
but weak capacities for new planning
mandates increases the risk of sector
development, negatively effecting
conservation efforts and increasing IS
problems.
Improved planning capacities and coordination amongst local players
provides a solid basis for fulfilling new
mandates & facilitates implementation of
the SGL that ties development in the
Galapagos to ecosystem carrying
capacity and IS control.
Local stakeholders play greater roles in
developmental planning but have low
awareness of the role that sectoral activities
play in the IS threat and lack polices,
guidelines and tools to incorporate control
measure to reduce negative impacts.
Galapagos inhabitants have improved
waste disposal services and localised
contamination is controlled
-
Sensitive habitat and endangered coastal
species are relieved from the pressure of
localised water pollution.
-
-GMR surveillance & expanded fishing
free zones increase the protection of fish
stocks but sustainable catch levels are
unclear and some species continue to be
depleted.
Protection of marine biodiversity will
continue through the expanded GMR & its
improved surveillance. The recently
approved GMR management plan will be
implemented & evaluated to identify further
actions required to fully protect global
marine biodiversity values
0
63.43
Total Project: 104.96
Including PDF: 105.34
Full Project:
18.30
PDF: A and B:
0.38
Total GEF:
18.68
Co-financing:
23.24
A- 7
Invasive species overlay for planning and
implementing sectoral development
enhances overall IS management and
improves long-term prospects for
biodiversity protection. Tourism and
agricultural sectors contribute more fully to
invasive species control.
ANNEX B: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX
OBJECTIVES
INDICATORS
GOAL:
Conservation of endemic
and native biodiversity in
the Galapagos
Archipelago and
preservation of natural
evolutionary processes.
At project completion:
PURPOSE:
Develop an integrated and
permanent system for the
Total Control* of
Invasive Species that
permits the long term
conservation of the
Galapagos archipelago.
AT PROJECT COMPLETION:
[* As defined in the Glossary of
the Special Law for Galapagos –
prevention, control, eradication
and mitigation]
OUTPUT 1: A coordinated inspection and
quarantine system for
Galapagos is in place with
the full participation of
local institutions and with
clearly defined procedures
and detection techniques.
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
1. Populations of indicator endemic and native species are
maintained at stable levels and indicator invasive species
are reduced and/or eradicated (see Annex B, Table 1).
2. Demographic growth is < than continental Ecuador (<1.6%).
3. Galapagos remains off the ‘World Heritage Sites in Danger’
list.
1.
Northern Isabela island is liberated from damaging
ecological impacts of feral goats.
2. Biological monitoring reveals a reduction in IS
colonisation.
3. Local institutions have increased their capacity to apply a
variety of eradication methods within the archipelago and
regional & local planning processes take IS problems into
consideration in the development of plans, programs &
projects.
4. The GNP and CDF annual work plans are geared towards
operationalising the bio-invasion control strategy.
1.1 Existing IS monitoring system extended to all seaports and
airports by year 2.
1.2. In the third year, rapid action mechanisms to identify and
eradicate or control recently introduced species are
operating with the full participation of local residents.
1.3.By the third year, an optimum cargo transportation system
for IS management is in place.
1.4 By the fourth year, SICGAL has the technical and
institutional ability to carry out introduction/ dispersal prevention interventions for non-native species.
ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS
1. Biological monitoring
2. National population
censuses and register of
inhabitants
3. UNESCO -World Heritage
Committee Minutes

1. Monitoring reports
2. Monitoring reports / external
evaluations / scientific
audits.
3. INGALA GNP, CDF annual
work plans/ Results of
Biological Indicator
Monitoring /External
evaluations
4. GNP and CDF work plans &
Number of pilot projects
replicated by end of 6 year

1.1. Signed agreements with
seaport and airport
authorities.
1.2. Project documents /
external eval.
1.3. Project documents /
external eval. / autoevaluation of SICGAL.
1.4.Project doc. / ext.
evaluation/INGALA
resolutions.







OUTPUT 2: Adaptive
2.1 A comprehensive I.S control research programme
B- 1
2.1. Plan document
The majority of endemic and native
species populations at risk have the
capacity to recuperate following IS
control and eradication efforts.
Regulations under the Special Law
for Galapagos are formalised and
applied.
Climatic events (such as El Niño)
will not be so extreme as to prejudice
the adaptation capacity of the Total
Control System.
Baseline activities related to solid and
liquid waste management and marine
reserve management attain their
goals.
Resources to finance recurring
conservation activities in GNP are
maintained near current levels.
Baseline operations related to the
Total Control of IS, developed by the
GNP and the CDRS, are fully
functioning and achieve their goals.
Government and non-government
institutions collaborate effectively in
addressing management needs.
Transportation policies between the
continent and the Galapagos are not
changed in a manner that would
reduce the efficacy of control
activities.
Agricultural policies on the continent
do not change in ways that would
favour increased importation of
goods to Galapagos.
OBJECTIVES
INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
management mechanisms
established to develop and
up-date a scientifically
sound, well-programmed
and cost-effective bioinvasion control
programme.
developed by the end of year 1.
2.2 An I.S control research unit created in the CDRS set-up by
the end of the second year.
2.3. By year 5, operational costs of the CDRS research unit are
transferred to other funding sources.
2.4. A collection and database of aggressive invasives is
created during the first year of the project and continually
updated.
2.5. By year 4, a prioritisation methodology is designed &
being applied. By the end of year 6, an agreed and fully
financed plan of action for Total Control of IS is being
executed.
2.6. By year 6, new methodologies developed & tested for
vertebrate, invertebrate & plant invasive control &
eradication.
2.7 International advisory group meeting held annually to
provide advice on control methods and input to M&E.
3.1 Goats completely eliminated from northern Isabela Island
by year 6 of the project.
3.2 A continual decline in goats removed per unit effort in
southern Isabela throughout the course of the project.
3.3. By the end of year 4, control and eradication
methodologies involving other species and other
ecological circumstances have been validated.
3.4. By year 6, various experiments have been analysed and
results have been published.
3.5. By the end of year 6, a plan to replicate control and
eradication activities undertaken during the project has
been developed and approved, with dedicated funding
sources identified.
4.1 By end year 1 an intensive fund-raising campaign is
underway for capitalising the fund
4.2. By year 2 a sub-account to hold the assets of the fund is y
established within the DSF and has well-defined
procedures and bylaws consistent with international norms
4.3. US$10 M raised by year 4 of the project for the Fund,
triggering US$ 5 M in GEF seed capital.
2.2 Tripartite evaluation
2.3. CDRS annual work plan
/ tripartite evals.
2.4. Data base
2.5. Methodology docs. / total
control plan / external eval.
2.6. Publications, results of
testing
2.7. Advisory group minutes
OUTPUT 3:
A series of eradication
and control pilot projects
implemented to eliminate
critical invasive species
populations and to
strengthen the technical &
operational capacity of
parties* with IS control
responsibilities
(* SLG art. 55)
OUTPUT 4:
An expanded and
efficiently operating
financial mechanism is
operationalized permitting
the permanent funding of
IS control activities in the
Galapagos
B- 2
3.1 Biological monitoring
/ external eval.
3.2. Hunt database
3.3. Advisory group minutes
/ external evaluation.
3.4. Publications
3.5.Total control plan with
replication plan /INGALA
resolution/GNPS & CDF
work plans
4.1. Campaign plan
4.2. Bylaws and regulations of
the expanded DSF &
consensus-building
meetings minutes
4.3 Capitalization plan,
Bank & fund accounting
records
ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS
OBJECTIVES
INDICATORS
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
OUTPUT 5:.
A community awareness
and participation
programme for bioinvasion control is
developed.
5.1. A public forum established by end of year 1 with
participation and management procedures defined and
disseminated.
5.2. Participation in the forum continues to grow and meetings
resolve the conflicts arising from control, eradication and
quarantine measures.
5.3. The number, and geographic and sectoral scope, of private
reports on the presence of I.S grows progressively
throughout the project.
5.4 At project closure, 85% of the Galapagos community is
aware of the problem of I.S and control procedures and
responsibilities.
5.5. 80% of the air and marine cargo transport companies
conform with procedures established in the SICGAL.
5.6. At least 50% of tourist ship passenger cabins are
‘ecologically certified’ by project completion.
5.1.Procedures documents &
forum minutes.
5.2. Forum minutes
5.3. Monitoring data and early
warning system.
5.4. Periodic surveys
5.5 Inspection reports and
surveys.
5.6. GNP Green certificate
registry
OUTPUT 6:
A bio-invasion overlay
developed for regional
planning with a set of
guidelines and
instruments that ensure
that sector developments
are consistent with
invasive species control
needs
6.1 Policy development guidelines for key sectors completed
by the end of year 2.
6.2 By year 4, regional and local sector policies have
incorporated guidelines designed to prevent the
establishment and propagation of IS
6.3. By year 2, a tourism sector plan exists which incorporates
total control elements.
6.4. In areas newly opened for tourism activities, no new
introductions are detected.
6.5 By year 4, an agricultural management policy developed
that enhances the control of I.S introduction and dispersal;
& resources have been earmarked for its implementation.
6.6. Successful co-ordination of different investment initiatives
in Galapagos by the end of year 1.
6.1. INGALA policy
documents
6.2. IS Impact Procedures and
INGALA Manuals
6.3. Evaluation of Tourism Plan
document
6.4. Biological Monitoring
reports
6.5 Strategy documents /
project profile and
INGALA operational
plans
6.6. Project follow-up matrix /
minutes of interagency and
inter-institutional meetings
ASSUMPTIONS & RISKS
ACTIVITIES – OUTPUT 1
 Implement a monitoring system to detect new IS in the most probable areas of introduction, that complements the more general biological monitoring system
established through the GEF medium project (Output 2)
 Establish an emergency rapid response team, in co-ordination with activity 5.2 (weed busters).
B- 3

Develop and update procedure manuals for the quarantine and inspection system, which take into account the movement of goods from the continent, between
islands and within islands.
 Build necessary infrastructure to implement the Galapagos quarantine and inspection system – SICGAL (control points, detection, fumigation centres and others).
 Acquire communications and computer systems equipment necessary for the successful implementation of SICGAL.
 Develop and implement a training program for SICGAL inspectors and technicians.
 Hold planning and co-ordination workshops and seminars for institutions participating in SICGAL.
 Develop an optimal internal transportation system for cargo (including ship registries).
 Assess the feasibility of instituting a user fees framework for quarantine services, to recover costs associated with SICGAL
 Implement the new fee schedules for SICGAL, so internalising the cost of management services in trade.
ACTIVITIES - OUTPUT 2
 Design the first phase of a permanent research programme that aims to quantify and prevent negative IS effects on endemic and native species through the creation of
predictive models of invasion and prescriptive models for the selection of control or eradication methodologies.
 Implement the first phase of the permanent invasive species research programme described in activity 2.1.
 Create a collection and database of existing and potential invasive species (including pathogens, plants and invertebrates) in order to improve the monitoring system
by enabling identification in a field context and thus provide information on levels and risks to feed into the planning system.
 Carry out basic research in sensitive habitat restoration and threatened species recuperation.
 Develop control and eradication methodologies for species that currently lack effective control and eradication methodologies.
 Establish a scientists’ exchange programme to support the development of new control and eradication methods.
 Develop a total control plan and detailed accompanying plans for its implementation.
 Develop a priority setting methodology as part of the total control plan.
 Establish an international technical advisory group for the IS total control system.
ACTIVITIES - OUTPUT 331
 Eradicate goats from northern Isabela Island as a demonstration project for the eradication of mega-populations. 100,000 goats will be eradicated over 5 years in 3
stages: a rapid knock down phase with high precision aerial hunting, ground hunting and evaluation. Goat control activities will be undertaken in southern Isabela to
prevent re-introduction to the north and to lead to full eradication in south.
 Undertake a series of demonstration projects for species-specific eradication of small-scale populations selected to represent a range of challenges associated with
eradication needs in the Galapagos
 Undertake a series of control and mitigation demonstration projects selected to represent the range of challenges associated with control and habitat restoration needs
in the Galapagos.
 Prepare and publish a series of “how-to” guides, including analysis of best methods and recommendations for the eradication and control of species with the
objective of facilitating replication in other Galapagos islands and in other parts of the world.
 Determine the full cost of control and eradication activities for the entire range of invasive species across the archipelago based on the results of the demonstration
projects and evaluation of the cost effectiveness of the methods for which ecological and technical viability has been proven
 Develop a strategy for replication of the demonstration projects as a component of the I.S plan to be developed in Output 2.
31
See annex G for details.
B- 4
ACTIVITIES - OUTPUT 4 32
 Restructure the Darwin Scientific Foundation to serve as a Trustee for the Financial Mechanism for sustained invasive species control action;
 Hold consultations with main stakeholders (Donors, NGOs, Gov. etc) to fine-tune the new structure and obtain broad-based support for the fund
 Design and implement a 3-year intensive fund-raising campaign as the first stage in capitalising the fund.
 Create and support the operations of an Operations unit to manage and co-ordinate the in-country activities of the Fund.
 Perform independent evaluation of the structure of the revised fund to ensure compliance with international best practices and norms.
 Negotiate tri-partite donor agreement between UNDP, the GoE and the DSF governing the management and administration of GEF contributions to the endowment
 Dedicate US$ 5 million in seed capital (GEF) on a US$ 1: 2 match.
 Consolidate lessons learnt and prepare for a long-term and sustained low level fund raising for more gradual capitalisation of expanded fund
ACTIVITIES - OUTPUT 5
 Establish a discussion forum to help limit potential conflicts between interest groups. This will also provide inputs to activities under Output 6.
 Establish community-monitoring systems designed to promote community reporting of new invasives or increases in existing populations.
 Develop and implement public outreach and communications strategies and campaigns for total IS control, that complement exiting biodiversity conservation
outreach programmes and include information on socio-economic effects of IS for the resident population based on case-studies.
 Strengthen the capacity of GNPS and CDF to produce didactic material and implement sustained campaigns in the medium term to maintain the behaviour changes
in the community attained through the project.
 Undertake periodic socio-economic surveys to monitor attitudes and practices and provide data to fine-tune the awareness campaigns.
ACTIVITIES - OUTPUT 6
 Through local, participatory-planning mechanisms, develop and formalise policy guidelines for infrastructure, agriculture, transport, settlement planning, waste
management and tourism sectors, that incorporate total control of I.S principles and enhance control activities.
 Establish an assessment process for approval of development projects in Galapagos that is based on the policy guidelines developed above and that determines their
potential impact in relation to invasive species and ensures the incorporation of specific mitigation measures to prevent the introduction and propagation of nonnative species.
 Evaluate different scenarios for expanding the tourism sector in relation to the impact on invasive species and develop a sector plan incorporating IS management.
 Evaluate the technical, economic and social viability of the current agricultural sector and develop a new management strategy that controls I.S, and prompts selfsufficiency in agricultural products and the survival of endemic species.
 Implement priority actions of this new agricultural management strategy and mobilise additional resources for its implementation if required.
 Design a system of incentives and disincentives to promote best practices among residents and tourists, incorporating results from case studies.
 Develop a code of ethics for tour operators and a complement of incentives for its adoption.
 Develop and implement a green certification process for tour operators
 Design and apply policies and instruments that lead to reduced population growth in the archipelago
 Establish an operational unit to co-ordinate conservation projects in the Galapagos, particularly those related to IS control
TABLE 1: BIOLOGICAL INDICATORS [PROJECT GOAL AND PURPOSE]
Aspect to be
evaluated
32
Location
/Island
Indicator/Target Species
Success criteria
See annex H for details.
B- 5
Baseline Value
Target Value for 2006
Aspect to be
evaluated
Location
/Island
Santiago
Floreana
Indicator/Target Species
Scalesia atractyloides)
Floreana Flax
Increased protection of
Linum cratericola
endemic species and Floreana,
Cutleaf Daisies;
natural evolutionary San Cristóbal Lecocarpus pinnatifidus and
processes
L. Darwinii.
Santiago
Galapagos Shrub Snapdragon
Galvezia leucantha
Removal of main
Darwin’s Daisies
threat (goats) to
Darwini othamnus spp.
endemic species
Isabela
Daisy Trees Scalesia spp.
&
Strengthening the
Capacity for
Northern
Feral Goats
eradication of megaIsabela
Capra hircus
populations
Eradication of small
S. Isabela
Blackberry
size populations of
Rubus niveus,
invasive species is
Baltra
Domestic cat
improved and key
Felis catus)
challenges of
Santiago
Wild Pig
eradication overcome
Sus scrofa
Fernandina
Smooth-billed Anis
Crotophaga ani
Control of key invasives San Cristobal, Blackberry Rubus niveus is improved and
Santa Cruz)
Success criteria
4 plants, 2 sites
20 plants
3 increasing populations
> 20 plants
Not declining
Baseline population estimate
expected mid-2000s
Same as or more than mid-2000
baseline figures
Increasing No in
established pop.
Not declining
<60 plants
Increased regeneration
and mature populations
stable or increasing
Presence
At least three stable or increasing
populations
Precise baseline figures to be
Populations increased relative to
estimated by mid-2000
baseline established in 2000
Populations on Alcedo volcano Many young plants on Alcedo
severely depleted and with zero and stable or increased mature
regeneration
populations
Abundant (c.100,000)
0
Presence
40 ha
0
Presence
Abundant
0
Presence
Very few individuals
0
Presence
Low density
0
Decline in abundance
Rapidly expanding range, large Large stands removed from
areas of mono-specific stands
GNP, density reduced in Agric.
Zones
Santa Cruz
Quinine
Cinchona pubescens
Decline in abundance
Present in c. 120 km2
Espanola
Espanola Cutleaf Daisy
Lecocarpus lecocarpoides
Espanola
Endemic Prickly Pear
Opuntia megasperma
Green Sea Turtle
Chelonia mydas
Pinzon Giant Tortoise
Geochelone ephippium
Increasing numbers in
established population
ranges
Extirpated pop. reestablished
# nests protected from
pigs
Population increase
3 pop. on islets, single
population on main island <20
plants, not increasing
0
Southern
Isabela
Pinzon
Target Value for 2006
Not extinct.
Population increase
principle challenges to
control overcome
Mitigation of the
impact on endemic
and native species is
improved and key
challenges of
mitigation overcome
Baseline Value
B- 6
Trees of reproductive age
removed from at least 50% of
this area
Populations on main island
regenerating
At least 50 plants established
0 nests protected
600 nests protected
400
800
Aspect to be
evaluated
Improved biodiversity knowledge
base to enhance I.S
management
Location
/Island
Southern
Isabela)
San Cristobal
Indicator/Target Species
Galapagos Giant Tortoise
Geochelone vicina
Galapagos Petrel
Pterodroma phaeopygia
Southern
Galapagos Giant Tortoise
Isabela
Geochelone guntheri
Range other
Galapagos Shrub Snapdragon
than Santiago Galvezia leucantha
Success criteria
Baseline Value
Target Value for 2006
Population increase
60
300
% successful breeding
pairs
Population increase
< 5%
>30%
60
300
Increased knowledge on
populations, range and
biology.
Rabida ssp. <50 plants.
Pop. on Rabida > 50 and biology
understood
Isabela & Fernandina pop.
known, and increasing.
Isabela & Fernandina subsp
status unknown
Selection Criteria for Indicator Species and Sampling Locations
Species will be selected for the monitoring program based on the following criteria:
Species should:
1. Be representative of their communities: Represent different trophic levels; Interact with a variety of species; Respond to a variety of environmental
components (abiotic and biotic factors).
2. Be easy to monitor: Easily detected in the environment to reduce sampling effort; Abundant so that adequate samples can be obtained; Easily captured or
measured if needed.
3. Have baseline data available: Preferably have data from previous research in Galápagos.
4. Have high global conservation values: Endemic species that inhabit only a single island will be given priority. Less significance will be accorded to nonendemic native species that inhabit all islands.
5. In the case of exotic species, exhibit significant threats to indigenous organisms or have large potential for dispersal.
Sampling localities will be selected to spread monitoring effort across areas facing anthropogenic change, particularly from the colonisation of invasive species and
those insulated from severe anthropogenic pressures. All areas surrounding airports and maritime ports have the highest priority –to facilitate the early detection of
arriving exotic species. The five inhabited islands (Baltra, Floreana, Isabela, San Cristóbal, and Santa Cruz) form a group with the highest probability of
anthropogenic change. A group with the lowest probability includes nearly pristine islands with few or no sites presently visited by tourists. These include the
islands of Genovesa, Fernandina, Marchena, Wolf and Darwin. Islands with intermediate probability of change include Española, Pinta, Pinzón, Santa Fé, and
Rábida.
B- 7
ANNEX C: STAP ROSTER TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT BRIEF
Introduction
Invasive species represent, after habitat destruction, the greatest threat to biodiversity today, although it
is one that is not fully acknowledged by conservationists. This proposal to counter the threats from
past and future invasions by alien species to the Galapagos World Heritage site, with its unique
biodiversity and evolutionary significance, is of major significance not only locally and regionally but
also globally.While total control of invasive species of plants and animals is almost certainly
impossible, current investment in both research and action to control and manage their effects in the
Galapagos, a flagship area of biodiversity, is inadequate despite the major commitments already made
by the Government of Ecuador and bodies such as the Charles Darwin Foundation.
The proposal is comprehensive, highly ambitious and multidisciplinary and aims to prevent future
successful invasions, develop and demonstrate cost-effective means of eradication, control and
mitigation, build up research capacity, establish appropriate financial mechanisms for the costs of
control and capacity building, and build up public awareness in both the archipelago and the mainland.
The proposal is fully detailed, well presented, and carefully argued and will, if accepted, make a major
contribution to the GEF portfolio.
Scientific and technical aspects
The proposal clearly recognizes that the control and management of invasive species, the mitigation of
their effects and the prediction of which species may become a threat to a particular area such as the
Galapagos Archipelago, involves an extremely costly and complex set of operations, involving not
only scientific and technical challenges but also major social, cultural and economic dimensions.
It details (in Annex F, Threats Assessment) the threats to biodiversity in the Archipelago that persist
despite the actions taken by the government, including the gazetting of 97% of the land area as a
national park and the creation of a marine reserve, and the declaration of the Islands as a World
Heritage Site and a Biosphere Reserve.
The overall goal of the project is ‘Conservation of endemic and native biodiversity in the Galapagos
Archipelago and preservation of natural evolutionary processes’, and the purpose is to develop ‘an
integrated and permanent system for the Total Control  of Invasive Species that permits the long term
conservation of the Galapagos archipelago’. Of course ‘total control’ is an almost unachievable goal
but the series of outputs, actions and indicators (see Annex B: Logical Framework Matrix) that it
proposes are all well established approaches and should go as far as is possible to meet this end. The
project does recognize that the complexity of ecological processes rarely permits the adoption of a
single option in a given scenario and it proposes to develop a spectrum of management options through
a series of pilot or demonstration projects
At project completion it is aimed to ensure that ‘populations of indicator endemic and native species
are maintained at stable levels and indicator invasive species are reduced or eradicated’ and it refers to
Annex B Table 1: Biological Indicators. A clearer explanation of what is meant by indicator species
and how they are defined and selected is needed. [The significance of scientific/common names of

As defined in the Glossary of the Special Law for Galapagos – prevention, control, eradication and mitigation
C- 1
indicator species in bold face needs clarifying]
A curious omission in the series of actions proposed is the lack of reference to any ex situ programme
which is an important element of any integrated long-term conservation plan, to complement the ongoing and planned in situ conservation action. In particular for areas such as habitat restoration and
population reinforcement of endangered species, nurseries or botanic garden facilities for raising and
multiplying stock will be needed, and, in addition, well sampled and documented ex situ stocks,
especially of highly endangered species, should be maintained as an insurance policy. The role of the
University of Copenhagen Botanic Garden in maintaining seed and other germplasm of Galapagos
plants is not mentioned.
Another omission is the failure to refer to the international context of work in the area of invasive
species, apart from the CBD (even so COP Decision IV/1 C Alien species that threaten ecosystems,
habitats or species, is not mentioned). For example, no mention is made of the SCOPE Global Strategy
on Invasive Species, the Norway/UN Conference on Alien Species and national strategies developed in
areas such as Mauritius, South Africa, Hawai’i and New Zealand although it is assumed that those
preparing the project were aware of these and the invaluable sources of information and ideas that they
represent.
The project is not without considerable risks. As noted in Annex F under root causes of threats, there
are no known methodologies for controlling and eradicating many invasive species and a great deal of
targetted research and experimentation, some of which will take many years to demonstrate their
effectiveness, will be needed.
Another major area of risk that is difficult to quantify or plan for is the effect of extreme climatic
events such as intense El Niño episodes.
The project is highly complex and involves a whole series of actions, research projects,
demonstrations, control and mitigation measures, extension and education, all of which will require
significant personnel, training, preparation of materials, new procedures and cost-recovery
mechanisms. It is not clear what manpower is needed and what is already available.
Global environmental benefits and/or drawbacks
The scale of the operations proposed will certainly mean that the results will confer great global
benefits. Belated recognition by the international conservation and biodiversity communities of the
risks posed by invasive species, despite programmes such as the SCOPE initiatives for a Global
Strategy on Invasive Species, means that the combined series of actions proposed for the Galapagos
will attract considerable attention and will be used as a source of guidance and reference. At the same
time it has to be recognized that it is not always possible to extrapolate from one situation or area to
another: a species that is highly invasive on one island may pose no immediate or obvious threat on an
adjacent one; and all too little is yet known about the invasibility of different ecosystems.
The GEF context, goals and operational strategies, Council guidance and provisions of the
relevant Conventions
As far as I am aware, the GEF portfolio does not so far contain any substantial projects devoted to the
control and eradication of invasive species although it is mentioned in its Operational Programmes.
Certainly, this is a very complex problem for which there are no easy, fast or cheap solutions but this
C- 2
project would be instrumental in opening new ground for what GEF could fund. It is a very important
problem in an area of ooutstanding relevance for an institution such as the GEF.
Article 8 (h) of the Convention on Biological Diversity is to ‘Prevent the introduction of, control or
eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species’. The Conference of the
Parties to the CBD has addressed the issue in its Decision IV/1 C (Alien species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or species).
Regional context
The Galapagos, which are today a province of Ecuador, are true oceanic islands and situated at the
point of convergence of the principal currents of the eastern Pacific. The mechanisms put in project
and the lessons learned will be of great value for the region as a whole, including mainland Ecuador.
Replicability
As noted above, it is not possible to assert categorically that the experience obtained from this project
would be directly applicable in other situations, either in terms of species or habitat types. We still do
not yet know enough neither about the characteristics that make species invasive nor about the
invasibility of habitats to be able to apply a high degree of predictivity to such situations. On the other
hand, it is certain that many lessons will be learned from the science, techniques, methodologies,
structures and strategies that will be employed or developed during this project, and these will be
applicable in other situations, even though there may not be a direct correspondence. This is such a
major project in the field of invasive species that will inevitably serve as a model and reference point
for other similar work in different parts of the world.
Sustainability
The institutional mechanisms and structures proposed for creation or strengthening in the proposal
should ensure the sustainability of the procedures for control, eradication, management and mitigation
of invasive species and their effects.
Output 4 of the project proposal is for an expanded financial mechanism to be made operational and
permit the permanent funding of invasive species control activities in the Galapagos by the CDF and
the GNPS. In addition to government sources, it is proposed that the already existing Darwin Scientific
Foundation endowment be expanded to a fund, The Galapagos Trust Fund. Other financial partners are
identified in the proposal.
Contribution to the improved definition and implementation of GEF strategies and policies
Thus project will make a major contribution to defining a GEF strategy for the control and
management of invasive species. It will also serve to widen the GEF approach to integrated
conservation.
Secondary issues

Linkages to other focal areas
The project by its multidisciplinary nature links in with protected area management, global (especially
C- 3
climatic) change, trade issues, capacity building and education.

Linkages to other programmes
The project is strongly linked with other conservation and biodiversity initiatives and agricultural and
marketing programmes supported by agencies of the Government of Ecuador, inter-governmental
bodies, national and international NGOs and private donors. These include a GEF/World Bank pilot
project to strengthen Protected Areas in Ecuador and another for monitoring biological, social and
economic parameters in the Galapagos, extensive programmes by the CDF and work on habitat
restoration supported by WWF.

Degree of involvement of stakeholders
As the project summary states, the management of invasive species is unlikely to succeed without the
active co-operation of the Islands’ 16 000 residents and a great deal of effort will be devoted to
ensuring their active involvement in planning and executing operations, as well as making provision
for community awareness building and education (Output 5 of the project).

Capacity-building aspects
Capacity building of key institutions responsible for quarantine and inspection, invasive species
control, mitigation and education and awareness is an essential component of the project.

Innovativeness
The sheer scale and complexity of this project and the issues to be covered by makes it exceptional.
While it largely builds on established methodologies and practice, some of the operations proposed are
on such a scale as to make it unique in the field of invasive species management, control, eradication
and mitigation.
Conclusions
This is probably the best prepared and argued GEF proposal that I have come across since operations
started. It refers to an area of outstanding importance for the conservation of biodiversity and one that
has received little attention hitherto in the GEF portfolio. The issues it raises are of global importance
and I strongly recommend it for acceptance by the GEF Council.
Professor Vernon Heywood
Centre for Plant Diversity and systematics
School of Plant Sciences
The University of Reading, UK
22 December 1999
C- 4
ANNEX CI: RESPONSE TO STAP REVIEW
Comment: A clearer explanation of what is meant by indicator species and how they are defined and
selected is needed. [The significance of scientific/common names of indicator species in bold face
needs clarifying]
Response: The bold face in Annex B, Table 1 is the result of a formatting error, and is not intended to
underscore the significance of some species as indicators. This has been corrected. The Table provides
a list of indicator/ target species including 1] native and endemic species, threatened by invasive
species; and 2] alien species that are the target of management control efforts. As the management
program advances, additional species will be added to the list. Because it is impossible to monitor all
species everywhere in the archipelago, monitoring programs must, by necessity, concentrate on a
subset of species and localities. A note has been added to the table to explain the criteria for selection.
Comment: Well sampled and documented ex situ stocks, especially of highly endangered species,
should be maintained as an insurance policy. The role of the University of Copenhagen’s Botanic
Garden in maintaining seed and other germplasm of Galapagos plants is not mentioned.
Response: A new paragraph has been added to the proposal (para. 14) to describe the captive breeding
efforts of the CDRS, GNPS and the University of Copenhagen’s Botanic Gardens in Denmark.
Comment: Another omission is the failure to refer to the international context of work in the area of
invasive species, apart from the CBD (even so COP Decision IV/1 C Alien species that threaten
ecosystems, habitats or species, is not mentioned). For example, no mention is made of the SCOPE
Global Strategy on Invasive Species, the Norway/UN Conference on Alien Species and national
strategies developed in areas such as Mauritius, South Africa, Hawai’i and New Zealand although it is
assumed that those preparing the project were aware of these and the invaluable sources of information
and ideas that they represent.
Response: COP Decision IV/1 C on Alien Species is referred to in paragraph 49. The CDRS is already
collaborating with the SCOPE project GISP (Global Invasive Species Program), as indicated in para
53. [The Director of GISP has visited the CDRS and the CDRS and GISP are collaborating on a book
about invasive species issues.] The proposed UNDP/GEF project would seek to further cement these
linkages. It is intended that management controls on invasive species be performed in consultation
with management authorities in other small island environments. This is clarified in a footnote number
12.
Comment: It is not clear what manpower is needed and what is already available.
Response: The staffing endowments of management authorities and new manpower needs are now
detailed in paragraph 58. Further information on this aspect will be provided in the project document.
C- 5
ANNEX D: FOCAL POINT ENDORSEMENT
D- 1
ANNEX E: BIODIVERSITY OF THE GALAPAGOS ARCHIPELAGO
ENDEMIC SPECIES IN THE GALAPAGOS
1.
No of Native
Species
TERRESTRIAL AND COASTAL SPECIES
Vascular plants
541
Lichens and mosses
329
Terrestrial snails
83
Insects
1616
Other Arthropods
296
Reptiles
35
Birds
57
Mammals
14
Subtotal
2971
MARINE
Algae
333
Fish
306
Marine invertebrates
1945
Subtotal
2584
Group
Endemic Species
Number
%
229
26
80
900
81
32
28
11
1387
42
8
96
56
27
91
49
79
47
116
51
349
516
35
17
18
20
(MacFarland & Cifuentes, 1996)
SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GALAPAGOS ISLANDS CORRELATED WITH
2.
LEVELS OF
ISOLATION
Data
Island
Size
Class
# Islands
in Class
Area (ha)
Mean
Sum
Isolation (m)
Min.
Max.
Mean
Min.
Max.
Distance to centre
(km)
Mean
Min.
Max.
(ha)
>.01
>.1
>1
>10
>100
>1000
Grand
Mn or Ttl
9
0.1
15
0.4
21
4.1
13
30.7
6
196.4
13 60491.2
77 10234.5
0.5
6.3
86.7
398.9
1178.3
786385.1
788055.7
0.020
0.104
1.219
11.421
106.300
1410.800
0.020
0.1
260.2
0.9
734.2
9.5 1835.0
81.2 2375.3
499.3 54768.5
458812.5 30674.1
458812.5 10256.2
20
567.0
17
3870.0
103 10520.0
30
7970.0
310 175200.0
361 66600.0
17 175200.0
76.0
54.9
50.8
47.9
117.3
79.2
64.0
Snell H. L. (unpublished) Programme Leader, Vertebrate Ecology and Monitoring CD Research Station, &
Associate Professor of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico
E- 1
27.9
0.8
0.5
3.2
25.2
17.9
0.5
96.4
133.4
258.2
132.2
296.0
132.3
296.0
ENDEMISM BY ISLAND SIZE GROUPS
3.
Data
Island Size Class
>.01
>.1
>1
>10
>100
>1000
Grand Mn or Ttl
# Islands
in Class
9
15
21
13
6
13
77
Data
Island Size Class
>.01
>.1
>1
>10
>100
>1000
Grand Mn or Ttl
# Islands
in Class
9
15
21
13
6
13
77
Natural Flora Species
(Native & Endemic)
MEAN
6.9
16.0
20.0
29.2
39.0
192.2
49.8
MIN.
1.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
15.0
55.0
1.0
MAX.
% Flora Natives of
Total Natural
MEAN
17
54
50
75
89
410
410
27.0
55.7
47.2
48.6
43.8
62.6
49.1
MIN.
0.0
20.0
0.0
28.6
29.6
50.9
0.0
MAX.
52.9
72.7
68.8
63.5
60.8
71.2
72.7
Natural Fauna
Species (Native and
Endemic)
Native Fauna as a %
of Natural
MEAN
MEAN
1.2
5.7
9.9
14.9
17.5
38.2
14.3
MIN.
0.0
0.0
3.0
10.0
9.0
20.0
0.0
MAX.
4
15
18
22
27
63
63
36.7
55.5
50.9
50.3
53.4
37.7
48.2
MIN.
0.0
0.0
20.0
27.8
20.7
25.9
0.0
MAX.
100.0
100.0
75.0
70.0
80.0
60.0
100.0
% Flora Endemics of
Total Natural
MEAN
73.0
44.3
52.8
51.4
56.2
37.4
50.9
MIN.
47.1
27.3
31.3
36.5
39.2
28.8
27.3
MAX.
100.0
80.0
100.0
71.4
70.4
49.1
100.0
Endemic Fauna as a
% of Total Natural
MEAN
43.3
36.8
41.5
46.2
43.1
51.5
43.6
MIN.
0.0
0.0
25.0
30.0
20.0
36.1
0.0
MAX.
100.0
100.0
66.7
61.1
72.4
70.4
100.0
(Snell unpublished)
4.
INTRODUCED SPECIES BY ISLAND SIZE GROUPS
Data
Island Size Class
>.01
>.1
>1
>10
>100
>1000
Grand Mn or Ttl
Island Size Class
>.01
>.1
>1
>10
>100
>1000
Grand Mn or Ttl
(Snell unpublished)
Total Plant Species
Introduced Plants
Introduced Plant as % of
(I,C,N,E)
Species
Total
# Islands MEAN MIN. MAX. MEAN MIN. MA MEAN
MIN. MAX.
in Class
X.
9
6.9
1.0
17
0.0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
16.1
5.0
54
0.1
0
1
0.4
0.0
3.4
21
20.1
6.0
51
0.1
0
1
0.3
0.0
3.6
13
29.6
7.0
76
0.4
0
1
1.1
0.0
6.7
6
39.3
15.0
90
0.3
0
1
0.5
0.0
1.9
13 233.0
55.0
590
40.8
0 197
10.0
0.0
33.4
77
56.8
1.0
590
7.0
0 197
2.1
0.0
33.4
Data Total Animal Species
Introduced Animal
Introduced Animal as
(I, N, E)
Species
% of Total
# Islands MEAN MIN. MAX. MEAN MIN. MAX. MEAN MIN. MAX.
in Class
9
1.6
0.0
5
0.3
0
1
20.0
0.0
50.0
15
5.8
0.0
15
0.1
0
1
7.7
0.0 100.0
21
10.7
3.0
20
0.8
0
2
7.6
0.0
20.0
13
15.5
10.0
22
0.6
0
2
3.5
0.0
12.5
6
18.2
10.0
29
0.7
0
2
3.5
0.0
10.0
13
44.5
21.0
76
6.2
0
20
10.8
0.0
27.0
77
15.8
0.0
76
1.5
0
20
8.1
0.0 100.0
E- 2
Mammals
Goats
Pîgs
Cattle
Donkeys
Horses
Dogs
Cats
Rats
Mice
Birds
Anis
Reptiles
Geckos
Invertebratess
Insects
Wasps
Ants
Others
Nematodes
Microorganisms ,
Fungus etc
Plants


















E- 3



?
?
?









?
?

?
Polinization of introduced plant species
Dispersal of introduced plants
Predation of introduced animal species
areas for native and endemic animals
Competition for space, light, soils and
nutrients with native and endemic plant
species
Impacts on nesting and access to nesting
Disease, parasitism, debility and mortality
of native and endemic plants and animals
Competition with native and endemic
invertebrates
Competition with endemic carnivores
Predation of native and endemic animals
Trampling of bottom vegetation and
breeding areas
Elimination of woodlands, reduction of
shadoww and alteration of microclimate
Destruction of vegetation layer and erosion
Competition for food with native and
endemic herbivores
5.
IMPACTS OF INTRODUCED SPECIES




?



?



5.
HUMAN PRESENCE AND THE DECLINE OF BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY IN OCEANIC
ARCHIPELAGOS
 Fewer than 20% of the world's bird species occur on islands, yet 90% of the known bird
extinctions world-wide occur on islands. This figure is similar for reptiles, whereas for mammals,
probably fewer than 10% of known species occur on islands yet about 50 % of the known
extinctions occur there. It appears that humans inhabited over 95% of the islands where these
extinctions occurred and the remaining 5% are probably regularly visited by them.
 Prehistoric extinctions of birds throughout the Pacific correlate strongly with prehistoric arrival
by humans. Hawaii lost about 25% of its birds when Polynesians arrived 1500 years ago and
another 25% since the arrival of Europeans, Asians, and North Americans. New Zealand lost more
than 23 species of giant Moas after Maoris arrived (a reduction of at least 90%).

Islands and groups of islands that have lost proportionately more species of birds than any continent
( At least 95% of these islands have been populated by humans longer than the Galapagos)
Atlantic Islands
Iceland
Faeroe
United Kingdom
Canary
Ascension
Tristan de Cunha
Jamaica
Cuba
Bahamas
Greenland
Cayman
Pacific Islands
New Zealand
Guadalupe
Stephens
Hawaii
Lord Howe
New Caledonia
Norfolk
Bering Straits Islands
Philip
Ogasawara-shoto
Chatham
Wake
Cook
Solomon
French Polynesia Guam
Western Samoa Bougainville
Philippines
Nansei-sholo
Indian Ocean Islands
Indonesia
Seychelles
Madagascar
Reunion
Mauritus
Rodrigues
Kangaroo
 Islands with relative numbers of reptilian extinctions greater than any continent
Gran Caneria
Hispañola
Curacao
Tonga
Hierro
Jamaica
Madagascar
New Caledonia
Gomera
Puerto Rico
Mauritius
Round
Tenerife
Barbuda
Reunion
Cape Verdes
La Palma
Culebra
Rodrigues Seychelles
Baltra
New Zealand
Bahamas
Sicily
Puerto Rico
Mono
Malta Balearic
 Galapagos is famous for giant tortoises of the genus Geochelone that now occurs in only one other
place in the world - Aldabra. However, all of the following islands had tortoises of the genus Geochelone
until humans settled in them:
Bahamas
Sicily
Mono
Malta
Curacao
Balearic
Madagascar
Floreana
Seychelles
Source: Snell unpublished
E- 4
ANNEX F: THREAT DESCRIPTION
1.
The Galapagos Archipelago has remained relatively isolated from anthropogenic impacts until
quite recently. This prolonged isolation has allowed the survival of much of the Galapagos’s original
biological make-up, and as much as 95% of the original biodiversity endowment is still largely intact. This
fact makes the Galapagos Islands the largest, most complex, diverse and pristine archipelago in the world.
2.
Colonisation efforts were largely unsuccessful until the 1930’s when human settlements become
more firmly established, but populations remained small and scattered. Until as recently as 1950, the
residential population of the archipelago was no more than 1,400. In the 1960’s, tourism became
established as a profitable enterprise and has now grown to a more than US$100 million per year industry.
The success of tourism ventures brought about a parallel growth in human population as economic
migrants from the continent sought employment opportunities in the Galapagos. This resulted in an
increase in the population to the current level of 16,000, (5.9% growth annually since 1980). As the
Galapagos National Park, created in 1959, protects 97% of the islands’ terrestrial surface, this population
is still restricted to small but growing settlements distributed throughout the 3% of land outside the park
boundaries.
3.
Some 60,000 tourists visit the Island’s each year. Despite these numbers, the direct effect of the
visitors on biodiversity is surprising low as the GoE has taken great care to develop the industry in cooperation with scientists. A unique system of controls has been established. All tourists fly to one of only
two airports on the archipelago. Almost 80% of these visitors directly board ships for five to eight day
cruises that follow set itineraries and have highly controlled on-shore visitation at a limited number of
permitted sites. Tourists have access to only 0.02% of the park area and within this area, all on-shore visits
require registered guides that keep parties to marked trails and visitation centres and from straying afar.
4.
Whilst the physical presence of the tourist does not disrupt ecological processes on the islands, the
support system that is required to sustain this industry is of more concern. In addition to sparking the
increase in the residential population, successful tourism ventures have also caused a sharp increase in the
movement of people and cargo between the archipelago and the continent. This is effectively eroding the
isolation of the Galapagos and dramatically multiplying the opportunities for introduction of invasive
species to the archipelago. The present rate of introductions is estimated at 10,000 times above the natural
rate.
5.
Today, introduced species have been recognised as the single most outstanding threat to the
Galapagos’ biodiversity and its evolutionary processes. The following matrix reviews this threat and its
root causes and summarises activities that are required for its mitigation. These activities were identified
through a series of participatory workshops held during the different phases of project formulation in the
Galapagos with representation from a diverse range of stakeholders. These threats and proposed activities
form the basis on which the project has been designed. In addition to the threat of invasive species, two
further proximate threats to biodiversity were identified in the workshops. Although these are much less
significant determinants of biodiversity loss, they have been included in the following matrix together
with a description of root causes and activities required for abatement. Finally, the issue of population
growth has been included under a separate heading. Whilst this is not primarily a proximate threat to
biodiversity, its importance as a determinant of bio-invasion is so significant that it merits specific
treatment.
F- 1
THREATS MATRIX
ROOT CAUSES OF THREAT
ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE THREAT
Proximate Threat 1: Introduced Species:
The growing number of aggressive invasives occupying ecological niches in the Galapagos constitutes the main threat cause of biodiversity loss,
directly through displacement of native and endemic species and indirectly through competition for food, breeding and nesting sites, degradation of
habitat and disruptions in ecological and evolutionary processes. Introduced species occur in all islands where biodiversity losses have been
registered. Habitat degradation is the most immediate concern with some islands showing considerable losses, particularly those with feral goat
populations. North Isabela Island, for example, has the largest goat population in the archipelago with an estimated 100,000 animals present and
vegetation loss on the Alcedo volcano is critical, directly affecting the endemic Galapagos Tortoise populations. At the species level, visible losses
have occurred— particularly among reptiles and mammals. Eight of 11 species of endemic rats have disappeared. At least 15 other extinctions have
been registered at the level of subspecies, races, varieties or populations among vertebrates and plants. At the population level, (highly significant if
evolutionary trends are to be preserved), higher losses are registered including 20 bird populations, 12 reptiles and more than 50 plant populations.
Despite these trends, the vast majority of endemic biodiversity is still largely intact and in most cases habitat disruptions are believed to be
reversible.
1. Inadequate measures for prevention of introduction and dispersion of  Consolidate the prevention system by co-ordinating the
aggressive invasives including:
implementation of prevention and detection measures and by
 Only partial implementation of the recently designed and approved
enhancing the capacity of key institutions in the continent
quarantine system due to deficits in equipment, insufficient staff capacity for
and the main ports of entry to and between islands to execute
implementing new procedures and low public awareness of proposed
controls. (Baseline will maintain present level of SICGAL
measures
with revenue from tourism/SGL and Output 1 will expand
 Poor co-ordination between the different institutions designated with
inspection to stem invasion between and within islands and
implementing the quarantine system
to cover more invasive species)
 Inadequate techniques for detecting different types of invasives and forms of  Develop measures for the permanent monitoring, evaluation
introduction e.g. packaging, different goods and means of transport
and improvement of the prevention actions as new
 Insufficient norms and procedures to control the flow of goods, animals,
information becomes available (Activity 1.1., 2.10,, 5.1 and
plants and people between and within islands, particularly across park
5.2; baseline SICGAL implementation)
boundaries.
2. The capacity for control and eradication of existing invasives is  Strengthen the technical and operational capacity of GNS
insufficient in relation to the scale of the problem, for example,
and CDF for planning and implementing eradication of
 Technical and operational capacities in the GNP and CDF are below those
mega-populations (Output 3 activity 3.1.)
required to eradicate mega-populations of aggressive invasives, such as  Develop and test methods for the controlling, eradicating or
goats. These mega-campaigns require high level and consistent funding,
mitigating the impacts of key invasive species based on
well-developed long-term planning capacities, highly trained experts in
information from research programmes (Activities 2.2 & 3.2
specific techniques, well-developed co-ordination mechanisms and high
and baseline research programmes of CDF that provide
levels of awareness in local populations to better accept the large amounts of
biological data on some species)
F- 2
ROOT CAUSES OF THREAT
ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE THREAT
resource allocation to actions that produce apparently unclear and indirect  Develop methods for planning, prioritising and
benefits to communities.
implementing appropriate control interventions for
 There are no known methodologies for controlling and eradicating many
aggressive invasives under different conditions (Output 2)
invasives—particularly in some plant and invertebrate groups. Methodologies  Increase the awareness of local residents on the costs and
that do exist have not all been field- tested and adapted to local conditions and
benefits of invasive species control and design measures for
restoration measures for specific habitats following successful controls and
facilitating participation in control programmes (Output 5)
eradication campaigns are insufficiently developed.
3. Insufficient Funding: Although the SLG provides for the return of tourism  Improve current funding mechanisms for the IS research
revenue to control measures, this does not provide sufficient amounts for a
programme in CDF and delivery of control measures.
system that will provide full protection to global biodiversity values. Deficits
Baseline: tourism revenue will provide GNPS core-costs,
occur in 3 areas: planning and research, more comprehensive quarantine
projects specific income and current fund raising will
measures; emergency campaigns and the capital costs of replicating
provide a percentage of funding for CDF; Output 4 will
demonstrations.
restructure & capitalise CDF endowment to cover IS
research and planning and replicating control campaigns.
 The likelihood of securing large capital inputs for future
large scale eradications, will be improved, pursuant to
successful demonstration of the technical viability of
eradication, a reduction in the institutional learning curve,
and generation of comprehensive cost data on eradication.
4. Poor control of introduced species in agricultural and livestock areas.  Develop an agricultural and livestock management strategy
Limited awareness and access to effective practices has led to agricultural
that accommodates conservation objectives, incorporates
lands becoming sites of propagation and dispersion of invasive species. The
incentives for invasive species control and outlines measures
increasing number of abandoned plots (stemming from under-capitalised
to enhance the re-incorporation of abandoned land into the
operations, difficult growing conditions and weak marketing frameworks)
GNP (Output 6)
exacerbates this problem as abandoned land becomes overrun with invasive  Increase the awareness and knowledge of local agriculturists
plants.
and livestock owners on invasive species control measures
and alternative practices (Baseline Project Canadian Fund)
5. Insufficient solid waste disposal systems. Present methods of collecting,  Improve solid waste disposal practices, incorporating
transporting and disposing solid waste do not incorporate control measures
invasive control measures and increase community
and facilitate the propagation and dispersion of certain introduced species
participation by developing specific measures for domestic
collection and public monitoring systems (Baseline Project
EMG-IDB will develop and improve waste disposal
F- 3
ROOT CAUSES OF THREAT
ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE THREAT
practices in inhabited islands. Output 6 will develop sectoral
polices and guides that incorporate IS control)
6. Inadequate community awareness of the importance of biodiversity
conservation and the role of invasive control measures in this effort. While
this awareness is growing it is not fully reflected in practices of the resident
population.
 Increase local support for control of introduced species by
raising awareness of the costs and benefits of these measures
and strengthening community mobilisation, participation in,
and commitment to, prevention, control, eradication and
mitigation actions (Output 5 will develop a IS control
specific awareness campaign and set up public participation
mechanisms. These will fit into the CDF, GNP general
conservation awareness campaigns supported through
baseline and participation mechanisms)
 Strengthen the application of measures that control the
7. Sectoral planning, particularly in the urban, transport and productive areas,
dispersal of invasives between and within islands,
does not sufficiently address the issue of invasive species dispersion within
particularly at park boundaries, and incorporate norms
and between islands. In the past, emphasis has been placed on the control of
(Output 1)
new introductions to the archipelago and not dispersal within it that is of  Develop criteria and guidelines to be incorporated into
particular importance to biodiversity as the evolutionary processes and
sectoral planning to minimise the risk and impact of
endemic species in Galapagos depend on isolation between islands as well as
introduced species to biodiversity and to support biodiversity
with the continent.
conservation in general (Output 6)
8. Repeated climatic variations, particularly El Niño, cause sudden  Strengthen the current research programme to provide
fluctuations in environmental conditions that can favour some invasives and
information to determine the effect of climatic events on
increase introductions to the archipelago or to previously free islands within
invasive species populations and allow the corresponding
it. The Smooth-billed Ani, for example, spread from Santa Cruz, in the El
adjustments to priorities for control measure (Output 3)
Niño 1982/83, when excessive rainfall, vegetation growth and abundance of  Develop an early warning system to detect new
invertebrate food sparked a population explosion. During the same Niño,
introductions and permit emergency eradication campaigns
black rats (Rattus rattus) reached North Seymour Island from neighbouring
before populations become fully established (Outputs 1 & 5)
Baltra and mice (Mus musculus) established themselves on South Plaza
Proximate Threat 2: Contamination of land and marine ecosystems
There is growing contamination of terrestrial and aquatic habitats immediately surrounding the larger human settlements in Galapagos. Although the
significance of this to biodiversity loss in overall terms is very low, localised impacts do occur although these have yet to be fully measured.
1. Insufficient basic sanitation systems for the increasing resident human  Improve solid and liquid waste disposal systems in
population is resulting in the discharge of untreated effluents into bays near
Galapagos, and enhance invasive control measures including
human settlements and infiltration to ground water through poorly
the development of sectoral guidelines that regulate waste
F- 4
ROOT CAUSES OF THREAT
constructed septic tanks. Solid waste disposal sites further contribute to
contamination of ground water as well and provide fertile grounds for the
propagation and dispersal of invasive species (see previous threat)
ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE THREAT
from the continent and incentives that limit the production
and stimulate the adequate management of domestic and
industrial waste. (Baseline Project EMG-IDB will develop
and implement solid and liquid disposal systems. Output 6
will develop sectoral polices, guides and incentives.)
2. Poor control of agricultural chemicals, such as pesticides, fungicides and  Strengthen the capacity of agricultural and livestock
fertilisers, and biological products used in livestock production, such as
producers to implement sustainable agriculture practices
vaccinations, is increasing the level of contaminants in cultivated areas and
(baseline activity Canadian Fund).
disrupting the fragile ecosystems and habitats that characterise the islands.
Proximate Threat 3: Exploitation of Natural Resources
Some traditional livelihoods and commercial enterprises still employ practices that are increasingly causing habitat degradation in cultivated areas
and depleting certain species with high commercial value, for example matazarno trees.
1. Illegal hunting and logging activities within park boundaries has largely  Strengthen control over illegal logging through increased
been eliminated by successful action of the GNPS, however, small scale
monitoring of park boundaries (baseline GNPS-SLG).
exploitation of some hard wood species for construction still continues
Improve the control of natural resource exploitation in the
construction sector by developing regulatory mechanisms
and guidelines for this sector (Output 6 activity 6.1)
2. Incomplete compliance of tourism ventures to recommended invasive  Strengthen the application of norms for invasive species
species control measures leads to increased dispersal of species between
control in the tourism industry, developing clearer guidelines
islands. Also the heavy dependence of these ventures on goods imported
and participatory regulatory mechanisms (Activities 6.2-6.4)
from the mainland increases the risk of new introductions
 Improve local operators’ capacity for sustainable tourism
ventures (IDB-EMG and AECI)
3. Agricultural production is poorly developed, with the resultant high  Develop a sustainable agricultural and livestock production
dependence on food and inputs from the continent and increase in the risk of
strategy that reduces the risk of species introduction and
invasive species
dispersal (Output 6: activity 6.4)
Critical Root Cause: Human Population Increase
Human occupation of the Galapagos has been relatively short, but, over recent decades, demographic changes have been dramatic. This has caused
some direct but localised pressure on biodiversity through habitat degradation at sites where human settlements have developed. However, in overall
terms this effect on biodiversity is extremely low compared to the significance that human population increase has as a root cause of the proximate
threats to biodiversity. This is of particular importance to the threat of introduced species (threat 1). As the increase in the population is largely due
to immigration, an increasing number of residents do not have a longstanding commitment to the conservation on the islands or a full
comprehension of the uniqueness of this archipelago. Furthermore, they bring practices and habits from the continent that have contra conservation
F- 5
ROOT CAUSES OF THREAT
ACTIVITIES TO MITIGATE THREAT
implications.
1. Immigration rates from the continent have been high (approx. 6%) for the  Review the price and salary polices to enhance compatibility
last two decades as:
with the mainland levels and real cost of services and thus
 In some sectors salaries are higher in Galapagos than the mainland
remove apparent economic incentives to immigration
 Although the real cost of public services are higher than in the continent this
(baseline activities –INGALA Strategic Plan)
is not reflected in the prices and tariffs charged in the islands
 Fully implement recent legislation controlling immigration
 Ineffective control of immigration
from the continent by strengthening the capacity of
 Economic crisis in the mainland with growing unemployment
INGALA for application of SGL (Baseline SGL will cover
recurrent costs of INGALA’s new mandate and Output 6
will develop policies for population management.
2. Weak urban development planning, absence of clear population policies  Strengthen the capacity of INGALA for regional planning
including construction and infrastructure guidelines appropriate for the
and develop guidelines to regulate sector development.
fragile island ecosystems, have led to poor use of space and degradation of
Define a population and land-use-zoning policy that
habitats in and around human settlements.
incorporates the use of environmental impact assessments to
regulate activities related to urban growth and infrastructure.
(IDB-EMG will provide some baseline funding for land-use
zoning and Output 6 will strengthen INGALA sectoral
policies including population policies (Activities 6.1/ 6.8)
3. Poor community support in implementation of immigration control
F- 6
 Increase the awareness in the resident population of the
impact of illegal immigration on conservation values and
develop participatory control mechanisms(Output 5)
ANNEX G. ERADICATION, CONTROL AND MITIGATION PILOT PROJECTS
1.
There are currently about 785 documented introduced species in the Galapagos of which 25 are
vertebrates and the rest invertebrates. Not all of these threaten native and endemic biodiversity but many
require immediate control to avoid irreversible losses to native species and habitats. Most of these are found
in the larger islands that also have the highest biological diversity and thus require the most immediate
action.
2.
The high numbers of invasive species, the ways that they compete with native and endemic species
and disperse within the archipelago, impede the adoption of one single approach to their overall control.
Three main approaches can be identified for existing invasive species. The first, and most ecologically
advantageous, is eradication throughout the entire archipelago or from specific islands and islets. This is
normally a one-time intervention if re-introduction risk is low. However, given existing institutional
capacities, and present levels of scientific knowledge, eradication is not feasible for many invasive species
and islands. In these cases a second option is to control populations of invasive species to levels that do not
threaten ecosystem integrity. This could be in localised areas, islands or throughout the entire archipelago.
When these two options are not possible, mitigation measures provide normally short-term protection to
endangered populations whilst more permanent solutions are being developed and tested. These include
measures such as fencing endemic species to maintain seed banks or exclude predators; introducing
endangered species into invasive free environments to maintain populations levels; and captive reproduction
programmes followed by re-introduction into natural habitats (where the survival probability is relatively
high).
3.
Although these are three clearly different approaches, the complexity of ecological processes rarely
permits the adoption of one single option in a given scenario. Effective interventions require the selection of
the most appropriate actions from a wide spectrum of management options that range from specific unidimensional measures to the simultaneous or sequential application of combinations of one or more
approaches. The GEF Alternative will develop this spectrum of invasive species management options
through a series of pilot projects. These will target known aggressive invasives for which eradication,
control or mitigation methods exist but that require testing or improving, at field scales and under specific
conditions, to facilitate more wide-spread application. Target species and populations have been selected to
also provide immediate benefits to endangered biodiversity. For example, islands with small populations of
the target invasive species have been selected in some pilot projects so that eradication in these localities is
achieved, in addition to providing important inputs for control programs in areas with larger populations.
4.
At the far end of the management spectrum is the targeted research required to provide new
techniques for each approach, and better define causal relationship in complex settings. These targeted
research efforts, to be undertaken under Output 2, will focus on those invasive species that are known, or
highly probable, aggressive invasives but that do not have available control methods. In these cases
management options will be developed through small-scale experimental action under rigorous scientific
procedures with adequate replicates and controls. These will form the basis for planning future pilot projects
at the field level and for providing a sound scientific basis on which to develop priority-setting tools and a
long-term bio-invasion management plan.
5,
The following table details each pilot project illustrating the contribution to management, the
selection criteria for the target species and locality, the immediate effect on biodiversity and the species and
localities to which they may be replicated. They are ordered to illustrate the continuum of the managementoption spectrum and combinations, including targeted research elements. Details of the most complex and
critical of the pilot projects - the Isabela goat eradication project- are included in the pages following the
general table.
G- 1
Management
Option
Spectrum
Eradication
of megapopulations
Archipelago
wide
eradication
of species
with limited
distributions
Management Issues to be Addressed in each
Demonstration Project
Target Invasive Species
and
Threat
Criteria for Selecting Target
Island
- Developing GNPS’ capacity to manage
large-scale campaigns (technical &
organisational skills)
- Applying known methods on a scale not
attempted anywhere in the world
- Removing the invasive species that is the
most damaging to terrestrial biodiversity at
a time when populations of endemic
species are still viable.
100,000 feral goats on
Isabela that are causing
intense and widespread
habitat degradation on
the northern half of the
island and threatening
large numbers of
endemic species.
- Illustrating long-term cost-effectiveness of
eradication whilst populations are still low
- Designing campaigns that require high
levels of public participation
Rock doves pop. on 3
islands competing for
food and with highly
likely effect of
transmitting diseases to
endemic birds
Isabela is the largest and most
biologically diverse island; the
north is uninhabited but has
Galapagos’ largest goat
population; the south is isolated
from north by the Perry Isthmus
and has much smaller
populations that will eventually
be eradicated through a longer
less intense campaign
Santa Cruz, Isabela, San
Cristobal are the only islands
with rock doves and their
populations are small (~100).
The islands are geographically
isolated and reintroduction risk
following eradication is low
Plants to be eradicated on any
island on which they occur thus
achieving archipelago wide
eradication. Species selection
criteria include: small
populations, known invasive
tendencies, availability of
eradication technique, not
irreplaceable to human
population
Up to 30 selected plant
species with low
populations at present,
but known to be
serious invaders in
other parts of the
world, and thus likely
to become seriously
damaging in the
Galapagos34
33
Immediate Effect
on
Biodiversity
Replicability
Costs,33
Source
US$
Immediate relief
to populations of
66% of endemic
vertebrates and
40% of endemic
vascular plants
- Santiago Is.
- Internationally to
other large-scale
goat pop.
- Large scale
campaigns for
other invasive
species such as
rats and plants
7.43
million
Direct protection
to 28 endemic
bird species on 3
islands. Reducing
risk of dispersal
Planning timely
eradication of other
I.S with low pop.
that are closely
associated with
human settlements
e.g. frogs
Techniques will be
replicable with
other similar
species, and will
serve as basis for
more ambitious
eradications of
better-established
species.
0.104
Removal of
dispersal and
expansion risk by
total eradication.
GNPS
CDF
GEF
million
UNF
1million
GEF
CDF
GNPS
This includes equipment, human resources, logistic costs, communications and publishing of lessons learnt
Starting with Aristolochia odoratissima (Dutchman’s pipe), Bryophyllum sp. (mother of millions), Urochloa mutica (Para grass) Citharexylum gentryi (timber
tree), Dalechampia scandens, Eichhornia crassipes (water hyacinth) Leucaena leucocephala (leucaena), Mimosa pigra (giant sensitive plant), Pueraria
phaseoloides (tropical kudzu), Rubus adenotrichos (blackberry) and Rubus niveus (blackberry, in Isabela Island)
34
G- 2
Management
Option
Spectrum
Eradication
of small
populations
of species
with wide
distribution
Management Issues to be Addressed in each
Demonstration Project
- Removing threat progressively by
preventing spread in well-defined
geographic areas (individual islands)
- Determing costs for total eradication of
larger populations
- Undertaking eradication of small
populations to test the effectiveness of
measures for replication to other
eradication programmes or control
campaigns.
Eradication
campaigns
in scenarios
of high risk
reintroduction
Eradication/
Control
- Testing the feasibility of eradicating newly
introduced species to establish best
practices for controlling future
introductions to islands before all suitable
patches of habitat are colonised
- Developing models for rapid response
eradication and raising capacity for use of
new technologies in IS control (GPS, GIS,
strategic hunting)
- Evaluating the feasibility of eradication of
widespread aggressive plant invasive
species limited to one island.
- Fast knock down of high density invasive
species populations to improve the options
of low cost long-term control efforts if
eradication is not feasible
Target Invasive Species
and
Threat
Criteria for Selecting Target
Island
Immediate Effect
on
Biodiversity
Replicability
Up to 5 populations of
plants known to be
aggressive invaders in
Galapagos, but that on
several islands have
small populations that
can be eradicated
Biting Black Fly
populations in San
Cristobal that threaten
freshwater fauna
through displacement
at larval stage
Inhabited islands. Suitable
candidate species include
species such as Rubus niveus on
Isabela, which threaten to
become serious problems, as
they have on other islands (e.g.
Santa Cruz).
San Cristobal has most of the
very few permanent freshwater
courses in the Galapagos.
Populations of Biting black fly
are low enough to make
eradication feasible.
Removal of
dispersal and
expansion risk by
local eradication
and relief to the
endangered humid
highlands on Is.
> Protection of
the majority of
freshwater fauna
in Galapagos
Smooth billed anis on
Fernandina competing
with endemic birds for
food and space
Fernandina has very few IS. The
anis was recently introduced
and is the only introduced
vertebrate on the island.
Populations are still relatively
low but there are large areas of
potentially permanent habitat
and dispersal risks within island
are high.
Quinine occurs only on Santa
Cruz, where it is the most
serious invader of highland
vegetation. If populations
continue to increase there is a
high risk of dispersal to other
islands.
Eliminates main
invasive species
from most pristine
island and
potential threat to
endemic birds
species
Provides input to
research for bigger
pops. and larger
eradication efforts ;
is replicable to
islands with low
pop. of other spp.
Temporary control
campaigns of
Biting black fly in
wet season on
other islands. Input
to other insect
control campaigns
- Fernandina post
future El Niño
events
- New anis pop.
introduced to
Tower and Hood
islands following
1999 El Niño
In high densities
quinine forms closed
canopies, altering the
structure of natural
communities.
G- 3
Protection of
endemic plants on
Santa Cruz;
eliminate
dispersal risk to
other islands
Design of the full
eradication or
improved long-term
control of Quinine.
Application of
methods to other
well-established
species
Costs,33
Source
US$
0.230
million
GEF
CDF
GNPS
0.20
million
UNF
0.41
million
UNF
0.50
million
UNF
GEF
CDF
Costs,33
Source
US$
Management
Option
Spectrum
Management Issues to be Addressed in each
Demonstration Project
Target Invasive Species
and
Threat
Criteria for Selecting Target
Island
Immediate Effect
on
Biodiversity
Replicability
Eradication/
Mitigation
- Eradication of aggressive IS from small
areas with low populations
- Testing combined management options:eradicating invasive followed by
introduction of endemic species to
guarantee survival whilst viable solutions
are found to protect endangered pop. in
other areas. Monitoring re-colonisation
risks following eradication and testing
effective rapid response measures.
- Testing control methods proven at
international level on invasives species
with known impacts and up-grading them
to the eradication level
-Testing combined management options:eradicating a key invasive predator to
protect previously re-introduced endemic
prey and, following this, monitoring of
inter-specific invasives prey-predator
relationships to determine control needs.
- Testing the effectiveness over larger areas
of methods known to be successful in small
areas. (Nine-fold increase in previous test
site areas - 2 hectares to 18 hectares).
The islets surrounding
Santiago are small
enough to achieve full
eradication of black
rats and they provide
suitable habitats for the
endemic rice rats from
Santiago currently
endangered by the
black rat
Baltra has relatively
high densities of cats
that prey on land
iguanas recently reintroduced following
local extinction. The
cats also prey on black
rats that will be closely
monitored and then
controlled if required
Little Red Fire Ant
pop. in Marchena that
is displacing endemic
invertebrates from
Santiago is the only island with
co-existing rice and black rats.
The reasons for this are unclear
but the risk of local extinctions
of the endemic is high. The
islets surrounding the islands
are different sizes and distances,
some are free from black rats.
Data on recolonisation rates will
be obtained through monitoring
Baltra is small enough for full
eradication & very accessible to
facilitate logistics. Successfully
re-introduced land iguana
populations are still low (100)
and need protection. The
existence of black rats will
provide data on inter-specific
prey-predator relationships
between invasive species
Marchena Island is uninhabited
and small enough to permit total
eradication of this ant, thus
increased direct benefits.
Endemic fauna on
the islets will be
protected from
black rat pressure
and numbers of
the Santiago rice
rat sub-species
will be increased.
Insurance policy for
long-term survival
of other rice rat
species Fernandina
(2 sp), Santa Fé (1
sp.). Data on black
rat recolonisation
rates will be used to
plan protection of
100 satellite islets
Cat populations on
Isabela, Santa Cruz
& San Cristobal to
relieve pressure on
birds, snakes, land
and marine iguanas.
Selection of control
options in setting
with complex I.S
relationships
Methods will be
used for control
campaigns in the
larger islands
0.16
- Determining most cost-effective methods
of control for invasive species populations
for which eradication is not considered to
be feasible, thus increasing the viability of
maintaining permanent control campaigns
and reducing the dependency on mitigation
measures such as fencing and breeding in
captivity programmes
Pigs on S. Isabela that
threaten green sea
turtle feeding on their
eggs and endanger land
tortoises through nest
depredation
Black Rat populations
that threaten the
endemic Galapagos
Petrel in 3 islands
preying on nestlings.
S. Isabela is the most important
breeding ground for green sea
turtles and currently recruitment
rates are very low. It also has 810 pop. (possibly sub-species)
of the Galapagos Tortoise
Santa Cruz, Floreana, San
Cristobal have had black rat
control programmes in place
many years but these are
extremely costly and hard to
sustain.
The mangrove finch is endemic
Increased survival
of green marine
turtle and Giant
Galapagos
tortoise
Within S.Isabela,
Santiago, Santa
Cruz, San Cristobal
and to marine turtle
pops. globally
0.164
million
Key Galapagos
petrel nesting
sites freed from
rat predation.
Replication to
petrels on other
islands and other
species at risk from
the black rat e.g.
mangrove finches
Mangrove finches
0.120
million
Up-grading
control to
eradication
combined
with
mitigation
and control.
Up-grading
small area
control to
larger areas
Control of
invasives
known to
impact
endemic
species
Control of IS
- Improving the cost-effectiveness of overall
Black Rats are known
G- 4
Increased survival
of recently reintroduced land
iguanas that had
been locally
extinct
> protection of
invertebrates in
Marchena
Increased survival
million
UNF
0.100
million
UNF
0.120
million
UNF
UNF
UNF
0.110
Management
Option
Spectrum
Management Issues to be Addressed in each
Demonstration Project
Target Invasive Species
and
Threat
Criteria for Selecting Target
Island
Immediate Effect
on
Biodiversity
Replicability
Costs,33
Source
US$
highly likely
to endanger
specific
endemic
control efforts by guaranteeing that control
campaigns focus on populations proven to
have a causal relationship with low
survival rates of endemic species.
- Strengthening links between targeted
research and effective IS management
to Isabela Island. Black rats are
abundant near two large
breeding colonies. If causal
relationship is confirmed then
control measures will be applied
rates in breeding
colonies of
endemic finch &
improved longterm protection to
species
elsewhere on
Isabela using black
rat control methods
identified in demo
above.
million
Mitigation/
Control/
Targeted
Research
- Detecting least cost protection methods for
scenarios with different species pressuring
endemics and through combinations of
mitigation and control approaches.
to endanger several
species and in certain
localities of Isabela are
thought to be the cause
of low endemic
mangrove finch
reproductive rates
Black Rats may affect
tortoise reproduction
rates. Populations of
Giant tortoises on
Pinzon are decreasing
and are currently
protected through
effective but costly
tortoise captive
breeding programmes
Improved protection
In addition to rats Pinzon
of the tortoise
tortoises are preyed on by the
populations on
Galapagos hawk. The size of
Pinzon.
tortoise populations that can
survive this pressure following
black rat control is unknown.
Rat control will protect tortoises
and follow up and controlled
targeted research will determine
if captive breeding programmes
are still necessary.
Through well planned research at the experimental level, provide data to cover critical gaps in scientific knowledge required for
prioritising and implementing invasive species control programmes. This will include:

Developing control and eradication methods for invasives that are not aggressive invasives elsewhere. For example,
domestic chickens are not considered invasive species in most parts of the world as they rarely survive in the wild. In
Galapagos the situation is different. Populations of feral chickens exist on at least two islands and these have declining
populations of native birds. Chickens not only compete with native birds for food during periods when food is scarce, but
are reservoirs for avian diseases. Research is needed to confirm the casual relationship, identify which diseases are
transmitted to what species of Galapagos birds, what effects can be expected and how to combat them. Other species to be
targeted in this category are the wasp (Brachygastra lecheguana) and the blackfly (Simulium bipunctatum).
Causal multipredator model will
be used to define
viable and cost
effective packages
of combined
management efforts
that can be
replicated in
Isabela and
Santiago.
Measures will be
tested at field scale
in the future & fed
into full I.S plan
0.090
million
Targeted .
Research
Programme
G- 5
UNF
UNF
To be
covered
through
Output
2
Management
Option
Spectrum
Targeted .
Research
Programme
Management Issues to be Addressed in each
Demonstration Project
Target Invasive Species
and
Threat
Criteria for Selecting Target
Island
Immediate Effect
on
Biodiversity
(cont)
 Developing control and eradication methods for invasives that are aggressive elsewhere but for which methods do not exist
or are not available at the scales required. For example, the little fire ant Wasmania auropunctata. Bait traps cannot be used
on a large scale for this ant and no other method has been found to control them at the scale they are found in Galapagos. They
are aggressive predators of insects, particularly Lepidoptera larvae. Efforts will include co-operation with specialists from
Hawaii where it is also a recent introduction, and other infested areas to find a common solution. This category will also
include elephant grass, guava and the blackberry, which has higher rates of regeneration than endemic plants, making
extraction based techniques ineffectual.
 Developing control and eradication methods for invasives for which methods exist elsewhere but that potentially more
effective alternatives could exist in the Galapagos. For example, the aggressive wasp Polistes versicolor. Control efforts for
these wasps in other places are based on the use of traps, but in Galapagos, a native moth has been found to parasitize the
wasp nests. This moth could represent a potential control agent in Galapagos and perhaps elsewhere. Research into the moth's
biology is required to determine its effectiveness and potential value as a control agent.
 Evaluating the effect of recently introduced invasive species on a range of endemic species and hence determine risks and
priorities. For example, recently detected introduced stem borers, white flies and scale insects represent a potentially serious
threat to native plant species. Research is required to determine which of these introduced insects may cause the most damage
to native ecosystems and what is needed to prevent them from doing so. Also the treefrog Scinax quinquefasciata that has
recently colonized several Galapagos islands. As this frog has never been introduced outside of its native range before
research is required to evaluate its potential impact and discover how it can be eradicated or controlled.
 Confirming causal relationship in complex ecological settings that do not occur elsewhere. For example, research is needed
to confirm the relationship between high mortality rates of Galapagos tortoise populations and a combination of introduced
plants and thermal variability specific to Santa Cruz. Abnormal mortality rates of Galapagos tortoises have occurred three
times over last thirty in areas heavily forested with the invasive Cedrela tree on Santa Cruz. These have coincided with
unusually cool years. Many of the dead individuals have had digestive tracts packed full of the invasive plant maracuya (a
type of passion flower). The cedrela casts dense shade and cuts out sunlight. It is thought that tortoises may normally be able
to maintain body temperatures warm enough to avoid problems caused by the maracuya, but during cold years the lack of
sunlight in Cedela areas could keep the tortoises from attaining these temperatures. Research is needed to confirm the
hypothesis that the fruit of the passion flower can be toxic to tortoises when their body temperatures are lower than normal
and, if proven, to identify effective ways of eradicating and controlling the invasive plants in tortoise areas.
G- 6
Replicability
Costs,33
Source
US$
Measures will be
tested at field scale
in the future & fed
into full I.S plan
To be
covered
through
Output
2
ISABELA FERAL UNGULATE ERADICATION PROJECT (I.P.)
1. Selection of northern Isabela Island as the Target Locality
1.1.
Biodiversity Representation and Ecological Integrity: Isabela island is the largest in Galapagos and
contains the greatest representation of the archipelago’s endemic biodiversity. Its total landmass (458,812
hectares) is greater than that of all other Galapagos islands combined. It is divided into two distinct units of
nearly the same size – northern and southern Isabela, by a 12 km wide isthmus consisting of near
impenetrable lava fields. This rugged isthmus effectively isolates the relatively pristine northern half of the
island from more degraded southern area, which has had a permanent human settlement for nearly 100
years. The southern area has suffered local extirpations and serious population declines of native and
endemic species due to the presence of wild cattle, pigs and goats and to the conversion of native habitats to
agriculture. Aggressive invasive plants have also displaced local flora in many areas. Though work is being
done in southern Isabela, it is mostly restorative in nature and long-term action is needed to reverse trends.
Conversely, northern Isabela has remained almost free from human induced impacts, except for the
presence of cats, rats, a very small number of donkeys and more recently, goats. No uncontrolled presence
of introduced plants has been recorded. Beyond the presence of a small U.S. military base on its northern
tip during the second world war, the area has had no human settlements since it was created about 3 million
years ago. Given its size and relative isolation from southern Isabela due to the Perry isthmus, northern
Isabela can still be considered the largest relatively undisturbed landmass in the Galapagos archipelago.
1.2.
Conservation Value: The size of northern Isabela is relevant to its importance in terms of
conservation values. Annex G clearly shows the direct relationship between island size and biodiversity /
endemism in Galapagos – larger islands have greater diversity. For this reason, protection of the relatively
undisturbed biodiversity of northern Isabela is fundamental to protecting the conservation values of the
Galapagos overall. All of the other large, biodiversity rich islands (with the exception of Fernandina)
currently have permanent human settlements, or in the case of Santiago island, have known widespread
negative effects due to the lasting effects of previous human settlements (feral goats, pigs, donkeys, plants).
2. Selection of Feral Goats as the Target Invasive Species.
2.1.
Threat to Ecological Integrity. Goats have been identified as the greatest immediate threat to the
ecological integrity of northern Isabela Island. Though rats and cats are aggressive predators, these have
been on Isabela for many decades, perhaps centuries, and the negative effect of these species on global
values over the next six years is much smaller than the devastating impacts expected from goats should
nothing be done to reverse current trends. In addition, no known means of eradication exist for these
species, making total eradication campaigns impossible at the present time. Site-specific control methods,
however, will be tested for these species through the GEF Alternative (funded by UNF) and once
adequately developed, full eradication campaigns will scheduled following successful eradication of goats.
2.2.
Population Size. Goats were first observed in small numbers in the south of northern Isabela in the
early 1970’s. By the mid-1990’s, their number had exploded to an estimated 50,000-75,000. The population
is currently estinated at 100,000, constituting a good example of a mega-size population and of the
management challenges that such scales present to invasive species control. Though still predominantly
restricted to the two southernmost of northern Isabela’s four volcanoes, small numbers of goats have been
sighted on Wolf (the third southernmost volcano) in 1999, indicating that they are moving north. Given
past trends, goats are expected to continue moving north as population densities increase to the south and to
eventually occupy the entire island’s suitable goat habitat, which consists of most of its vegetated zones.
2.3.
Potential Damage. The extent of damage caused by goats on Isabela island was first documented
by internationally acclaimed wildlife photographer Tui de Roy. Photos taken on the rim of Alcedo
(northern Isabela’s southernmost volcano) in 1995 were compared to photos taken in 1991. During the
G- 7
four-year interval, goats transformed the densely forested landscape, key habitat for the largest remaining
population of the giant Galapagos tortoise, into a desert of bleached tree trunks and dry grasslands.
Currently, an estimated 40%-60% of northern Isabela’s suitable goat habitat remains free of goat
populations (at least at densities likely to cause negative effects). The potential for damage is thus very high
if an eradication campaign is not undertaken in the near future. The only other island on which large goat
populations exist is Santiago. Goats have been numerous on this island for over 100 years. Here
populations at densities that cause serious negative effects, exist throughout the island’s suitable goat
habitat. Eradicating goats from northern Isabela island will have greater benefits in terms of protecting
native and endemic species, rare populations, undisturbed ecosystems and non-human induced evolutionary
processes than would a similar effort on Santiago island. Additionally, the negative effects on global
conservation values due to goats on Santiago are considered to be much less than those on northern Isabela.
3. Efforts to Control Population Growth
3.1.
Control versus Eradication. In an effort to deal with the exploding goat population on northern
Isabela, and with the support of the Galapagos community and funding from tourist donations, the GNP
and the CDF joined forces to carry out regular goat population control hunts on Alcedo’s rim, considered to
be the most sensitive habitat for the largest single giant tortoise population remaining in Galapagos (est.
5,000 individuals). Since 1996, on average, two hunts a year, consisting of 10-12 hunters on 10-day
outings, have resulted in the elimination of about 15,000 goats annually. In 1997, both the GNP and the
CDF concluded that though effective, these control hunts could only be considered as a temporary strategy
to deal with the goats. It was evident that goat reproductive rates and population dispersal to other regions
of northern Isabela island were surpassing the capacity of these two institutions to undertake control
measures given their limited resources and the many other conservation demands that required prompt
action. In addition, the permanent cost of control, both in monetary terms and numbers of animals killed,
would eventually far exceed the cost of a one-time large-scale goat eradication campaign. However, though
preliminary research revealed many examples of successful goat eradication campaigns on islands
throughout the world, none had ever approached the scale being contemplated in Galapagos.In September
1997, the GNP and CDF organized a 10-day workshop in Galapagos to evaluate the feasibility of an
eradication campaign on such a large scale. An international panel of experts was convened, consisting of
goat eradication practitioners, managers of previous eradication campaigns, government, NGO and other
representatives with experience in the matter. The workshop participants concluded that the eradication of
goats from northern Isabela is feasible, as long as a commitment both in terms of funding and
political/institutional support could be guaranteed from the outset and sustained through the campaign. The
workshop also resulted in the production of a detailed strategy for the eradication campaign (CDRS, 1997).
4. Eradication Plan and Budget
4.1.



Eradication Plan. This is expected to take 5 years to complete and will consist of 3 phases:
Preparation, including training, acquisition of equipment, establishment of infrastructure and planning
Eradication, through careful sequencing of aerial hunting, and ground based hunting as follows.
 Rapid population knock-down using aerial shooting from helicopters (up to 90% reduction in
population expected).
 Follow-up using ground based hunting teams assisted by bailing dogs (dogs that locate and
immobilise goats for subsequent removal by hunter -dogs will not make kills). Movement of dogs
and hunters will be assisted by helicopters (another 5-8% reduction expected).
 Removal of remaining goats using the Judas goat methodology - radio-collared goats to be released
in strategic areas and permitted to locate and associate with remnant goats over a period of weeks /
months.
 Radio-tracking subsequently leads hunters to these goats. (remaining 2-5% removed).
Monitoring of the success of the second phase through the use of Judas goats. An analysis of the
feasibility of eradicating goats from southern Isabela will be performed with an option of execution.
G- 8
4.2.
Cost. The eradication project has been budgeted at U.S. $8,444,900 (CDRS, 1997). The first phase
was inaugurated in 1998. Funding for a large part of it (total budget $1,665,700) was raised in 1998 and
1999, allowing for staff to be hired, GNP and CDF field workers trained, infrastructure established and
equipment acquired. Recent activities include contracting of two consultants to provide advice on technical
specifications for the eradication campaign and contracting procedures for aerial hunting services. A total
of 3,300 hours of helicopter flying time over a two-year period will be needed to complete the eradication.
The cost of the helicopter service (including two pilots, one mechanic, four marksmen, mobilization and
demobilization, helicopter time and base camp operation costs) has been calculated at US$ 3.6 million for
the two year duration of the campaign. The total budget for phase two is projected at $6,046,000 and
includes, beyond the helicopter work, equipment (base camp and support material, firearms and
ammunition) and operational and personnel costs (project management, ground hunting crews, a team of 40
trained bailing dogs, and kennels). Phase three will require funding for staff, a large team of field assistants
and associated support costs of systematic and monitoring activities. This has been costed at US$ $729,100.
5.
Potential Impacts of the Eradication Campaign
5.1.
Ecological: As northern Isabela island is relatively undisturbed, any intrusion of people associated
with the campaign will have potential negative impacts. The greatest threat comes from possible accidental
introduction of new species through the movement of goods from the continent or other islands to northern
Isabela. The more people involved, the greater the risk, as foodstuffs and other goods are transported to the
island. This risk will be minimized by: (a) keeping the number of people based on the island to a minimum;
(b) locating base camps in inhospitable areas where introduced species are highly unlikely to survive (e.g.
lava fields far removed from vegetation): and (c) applying a strict quarantine protocol on the shipment of
goods to the islands during the campaign. In addition, some short-term, negative effects may occur to
native and endemic species from the presence of people and their activities. To combat this, ground hunters
will be kept to a minimum (in part due to the use of helicopters) to avoid excessive disturbance of
ecosystems and the inadvertent transportation of seeds/insects between different ecological zones of the
island. The possibility of fuel spills exists, though fuel dumps will be maintained on lava fields far removed
from sensitive areas. There is a chance of fire damage due to human presence, or from helicopter operations
(e.g. heat from helicopter exhaust igniting vegetation, or helicopter crashes). Each base camp will be
equipped with ground and helicopter based fire-fighting equipment to combat such fires. Finally, there is
the threat of disturbance to plants and animals from the movement of people and equipment. Past
observations have revealed that tortoises are unperturbed by the sound of gunfire. Any possible disturbance
is likely to be temporary and much smaller in scale than an unchecked population explosion of feral goats.
5.2.
Animal welfare: Animal welfare is a foremost concern of the GNP and the CDF. Though
introduced animals must be removed, great care is being taken to ensure that means of removal will be
humane, quick and as painless and anxiety free as possible. For this reason, the GNP and CDRS have
recently decided to replace all .22 rifles with the more powerful .223 rifle. The .22 was considered too weak
to be effective. The .223’s added power ensures that no animal will unnecessarily suffer a prolonged death.
5.3.
Socio-economic: Goats are a secondary or tertiary source of income for a very small number of
southern Isabela island fishermen. Though not permitted by GNP regulations, GNP staff posit that these
fishermen may on occasion stop on the shores of northern Isabela island to capture up to 50 or 60 live goats
when returning from particularly unsuccessful fishing trips. Starting in October 1999, southern Isabela
residents will be contracted by the GNP, with financial support from the CDRS, to carry out pig and goat
control work on southern Isabela island in an effort to provide other sources of income for these residents
and increase their participation in invasive species control in Galapagos. Furthermore, co-funded
interventions in the GEF Alternative will explore the possibilities of strengthening small-scale locally based
tourism initiatives in southern Isabela. This will off-set any economic negative effects to island inhabitants.
G- 9
ANNEX H: FINANCIAL MECHANISM FOR INVASIVE SPECIES CONTROL
Medium Term Funding Deficits
1.
The ‘Total Control’ Framework for invasive species to be set up will incur incremental recurrent
costs. These costs constitute an ‘additionality’ over and above the regular baseline of conservation
interventions associated with managing the National Park and Marine Reserve. The SLG provides for Park
entrance fees to be earmarked for conservation management activities, including some invasive species
control activities. Estimated annual gate takings of US$ 4.8 million35, would be distributed as follows: 40% (US$1.92m) to GNPS for the maintenance and surveillance of park areas including some localised
and small scale control and eradication operations in the Park and spot checks in agricultural lands;
 5% (US$ 0.24) for GNPS for surveillance of human activities within the Marine Reserve;
 5% (US$ 0.24m) to the Ecuadorian Navy for surveillance of the 40 mile fishing free zone;
 5% (US$ 0.24m) to cover the recurrent costs of the new quarantine system [SICGAL]36
 10% (US$ 0.48m) for INGALA to support the recurrent costs of its new mandate which includes
developing a five year regional development plan and a land zoning plan for lands outside the Park.
 20% (US$ 0.96m) to municipalities for public works (municipal operational plans and budgets require
approval by INGALA to ensure compatibility with overall regional plans and directions of the SLG)
 10% (US$ 0.48m) for the Provincial Council for public works (provincial council operational plans and
budgets also require INGALA approval)
 5% (US$ 0.24m) for the National Protected Areas Network in Ecuador.
2.
These amounts are not insufficient to sustain a control programme of the quality needed and to
ensure that the invasive species management capacities developed by the project are effectively applied.
The invasive species control program would incur a number of recurrent funding deficits, discussed below.
(i)
Adaptive Management Mechanisms for Invasive Species Control.
3.
A permanent bio-invasion planning and research program is required to prioritise, plan and
evaluate management actions and develop and adapt control measures. These include mitigation of the
perverse impacts of invasive species on native species and broader ecological restoration based on
knowledge of ecological processes. The Charles Darwin Foundation is a non-profit making organisation,
which, under an agreement signed in 1959 with the GoE, provides the GNPS with the scientific information
needed to execute conservation work. Additionally, under Articles 55 and 56, the SLG charges the CDF
with specific responsibilities for invasive species control. This includes the provision of technical
assistance to SICGAL and GNPS for inspection and prevention programs and for developing and executing
species eradication plans. However, it does not specifically earmark resources to fund these additional
responsibilities or for the permanent research and planning program that the total control framework
demands.
4.
Applied research into the control and impact of invasive species dominates the terrestrial research
component of CDRS’ annual operational plan, and much of the local communications and education
35
An estimated 60,000 tourists visit the Galapagos each year. Entrance fees are set in United States Dollars under the
SLG and vary from US$ 100 for foreigners, through US$ 50 for Andean community members and US$ 6 for
nationals. Based on information on tourist composition, a set value of US$80 was used to calculate annual incomes.
This results in annual revenues of US$ 4.8 million.
36
As the quarantine services are expanded, SLG provisions will be complemented by cost recovery mechanisms to be
developed including inspection and quarantine fees. New fee schedules would be developed for these services under
the proposed project.
H- 1
component as well37. Following successful completion of the GEF project, CDF’s budgetary requirements
are estimated at approximately US$ 2.5 million annually (in 1999 prices) for its terrestrial work (including
research operations, communications, education, advisory services, and training). The budget of CDF for
FY 1998 was approximately US$ 2.2 million38. Much of the CDF’s income comprises ‘soft moneys’
leveraged from external donors, which fluctuate from year to year. Income stems from three main sources:



Category A: Secure, permanent or near-permanent income. Approximately US$ 0.3 million derived
from interest earned on a small endowment, the Darwin Scientific Foundation, (DSF), from appeals
to the 10,000 members of the Friends of Galapagos (FOG) organisations that are independent but
closely allied to CDF39, and two further very small endowments. [The DSF was formed offshore in
1985 as the repository of funds originally raised in conjunction with The Nature Conservancy and the
Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. The proceeds of the endowment are allocated towards
scientific research and associated conservation projects in Galapagos, in direct co-operation with the
CDF. It provides annual income of US$ 85,000 from assets of US$ 2 million, to which USAID is in the
process of contributing US$ 500,000 following a successful evaluation of DSF’s legal and operational
framework.]
Category B: Reliable income over a period of a decade. Approximately US$ 0.6 million derived from
souvenir sales to visitors; cost recovery on services to visiting scientists etc.; and donations from
organisations with a long-term commitment to CDF such as the Frankfurt Zoological Society.
Category C: Short-term income for one or a few years. Approximately US$ 1.3 million derived from
donor-financed projects, and donations from tour operators and visitors.
5.
The high reliance on Category C resources for funding means that CDF research staff dedicate a
substantial amount of their time developing new project proposals. In order to relieve this pressure, the
CDF has taken steps to strengthen its long-term financial base by expanding the existing DSF endowment
to provide more sustained funding for institutional running costs. Whilst progress is being made in this
area, the DSF remains under-capitalised and needs to be strengthened and expanded to support a
comprehensive and permanent planning and research programme for the long-term control of invasive
species.
(ii)
Control, Eradication and Mitigation of Invasive Species Across the Archipelago.
6.
The proposed Project includes a number of site and species specific pilot projects to develop the
know-how for successfully controlling invasive species populations and mitigating impacts on native
habitats and species. The Bio-invasion Control Plan, to be formulated under the Project, will provide a
detailed plan and schedule for replicating successful methodologies (to gradually cover all invasive species
and islands). These replications will be undertaken by the GNPS with scientific and technical inputs
provided by CDF. As with the CDF, the control of alien species is a dominant focus of the GNPS
management plan although a slightly higher proportion of GNPS resources are dedicated towards
enforcement activities needed to control access to the National Park and exploitation of natural resources. It
is projected that, following completion of this Project, the GNPS will require approximately US$ 2.80
million annually to sustain its terrestrial conservation efforts. This will include periodic small-scale
emergency control actions required above and beyond the level of normal control operations and for which
no budgetary provision currently exists. The present sources of GNPS funds for terrestrial work are as
37
See reference 7 Annex K
Post project budgets for CDF and GNPS will be slightly higher than present as both institutions will incur higher
costs to maintain the additional levels of operations stimulated through the project. This will necessitate larger than
current budgetary appropriations for invasive species focused control, eradication, mitigation, research, planning,
communications and education activities.
39
The three main support organisations are based in the USA, UK and Switzerland.
38
H- 2
follows:



Category A: Secure, permanent or near-permanent income. Approximately US$ 2.25 million. This
includes a portion of GNP entry fees, national budgetary appropriations and small amounts from FOG
organisations.
Category B: Income considered reasonably reliable over a period of a decade. Currently zero.
Category C: Short-term income for one or a few years. Approximately US$ 0.2 million derived from
foundation and aid agency projects, funds raised through tour operators and donations by visitors
following recently increased financial autonomy that allows GNPS to directly receive private
donations.
7.
Given this baseline, funding deficits will be incurred for equipment and operational expenses
associated with control replications. Furthermore, as activities increase in the marine area, competition for
category C income may occur, increasing deficits in this area. Preliminary estimates of the annual funding
deficits of CDF and GNPS are shown below, based on current levels of tourist revenue appropriations (see
footnote1).
Intervention
Planning & Targeted Research
Control & Eradication
Total
Annual Baseline
US$ 2.20 m
US$ 2.45 m
US$ 4. 65 m
Annual
Needs
US$ 2.50 m
US$ 2.80 m
US$ 5.30 m
Funding
Annual Deficit
US$ 0.30 m
US$ 0.35 m
US$ 0. 65 m
TRUST FUND MECHANISM
8.
The project proposes to create a permanent financial mechanism to provide sustained financing
to manage environmental threats to the Galapagos archipelago. An endowment fund (hereinafter
referred to as the fund) will be created, the proceeds of which will be used exclusively to address
conservation management priorities identified in the Management Plan for the Galapagos. Activities
would be consistent with the provisions of the Special Law of the Galapagos. In the medium term, the
activities of the fund will be geared primarily to addressing the threat posed by invasive species.
Accordingly, the fund will provide incremental financing to cover the bio-invasion control campaigns
of the GNPS and CDF (as per their responsibilities under the Special Law). In particular, the fund will:
(i) Provide more secure long-term funding for the incremental costs of GNPS’ invasive species
controls.
(ii) Increase the percentage of Category A funding for CDF income, covering the costs of a small bioinvasion management planning and research core-team and sustaining the level of research and
technical services built through the GEF Alternative.
The fund would be structured to allow for the expansion of its activities to address other conservation needs
in the Islands in the longer-term. All due precautions will be taken to prevent deleveraging the baseline of
conservation.
9.
In the medium term, fund would provide resources for replicating bio-invasion controls throughout
the archipelago. The GNPS would then direct efforts towards greatly increasing its currently low Category
C and B funding to cover the higher cost of large-scale eradication efforts. [Baseline commitments are
secured through the SLG and national budgetary appropriations.] The CDF has illustrated its fund-raising
ability over the last forty years and is committed to maintaining current appropriations for their terrestrial
programme.
11.
The appropriateness of a trust fund mechanism for overcoming the funding deficits identified above
has been assessed taking into consideration the recommendations arising from the GEF Evaluation of
H- 3
Conservation Trust Funds. A Fund with assets of US$ 15 million would provide income of US$ 0.90m per
annum, assuming a rate of return from fixed and variable investments of 6% per annum. Assuming
administrative costs estimated at 16.9% of gross income, to cover operational requirements associated with
management of the Fund, the Fund would net income for field activities of approximately US$ 748,000.
This will cover the estimates for the funding deficits, allowing for baseline operations to continue
unfettered and provide a small margin for any fluctuations in revenues secured from tourism, as well as any
exceptionally large emergency operations in a given year. With these funding deficits covered by income
from the Fund, campaigns and activities for eradication, requiring allocations larger than that normally
available through Trust Fund mechanisms could be raised through project-specific investments.
10.
A number of options have been considered for the design of the fund during the process of project
preparation, and in full consultation with the Government of Ecuador. Important considerations include the
need to 1] ensure the security of assets; 2] ensure that the fund functions beyond direct Government
control; and 3] capitalize on the existence of the Darwin Scientific Foundation (DSF), and the
administrative and operational structures created to operate it. It is proposed that the DSF be restructured to
serve as Trustee for the proposed endowment on behalf of the Government of Ecuador. The DSF is well
placed to provide this function, as it fulfils many of the recommendations of the GEF Evaluation of Trust
Funds (1997). Agreements have been reached between the GoE and DSF to strengthen aspects considered
to be weak. The following matrix describes how the Fund would comply with recommendations
Recommendation
Impact on Design
Existence of a valuable,
globally significant biodiversity
resource whose conservation is
politically, technically,
economically, and socially
feasible. The importance of the
resource on a global scale
affects the fund’s ability to
attract international financing.
Prospects for attracting international financing for the Trust Fund are excellent. The
Galapagos has an almost unequalled appeal at the global level due to its conservation
values and its importance as a natural laboratory for the study of evolutionary
processes. Global interest in and support for conservation efforts is expected to remain
high. The record of international support for conservation in the Galapagos is excellent.
Such support may be effectively channeled towards capitalization of the Fund.
The Government of Ecuador has demonstrated its strong political will to conservation
of the Islands by earmarking tourism revenues for conservation management, and
taking a number of other steps to maintain the integrity of ecosystems. The social
feasibility of intervention is high owing in part to the small resident population on the
Island’s, and past efforts to engender community participation in management. The
GEF Alternative will establish the know-how for eradicating and controlling invasive
species, uncovering the most technically feasible approaches. The 40-year track record
of CDF and GNPS provides high scientific and technical credibility for the effort.
Absence of major, urgent
threats requiring mobilization
of large amounts of resources in
a short time period (i.e., the
conservation action required is
long term and addressable with
the flows a trust fund could
produce).
With the creation of the Galapagos National Park and Marine Reserve, establishment of
the new migrations law, and the strict management of visitors to the archipelago, the
human “imprint” on the Galapagos has been largely controlled. The project will address
the one critical outstanding threat to terrestrial biodiversity—that of bio-invasion by
alien species. This threat is of a permanent nature and requires sustained funding
mechanisms. Whilst a sizeable, one-time investment is required to establish the
framework and capacity for controlling invasive species— of the quality required to
protect global biodiversity values—much smaller quantities of resources are required to
ensure sustained action following this intervention. A portion of this long-term funding
is guaranteed through the SLG. Relatively small quantities of additional resources
would cover the remaining deficits, particularly in relation to maintaining core research
and planning activities; covering the operational costs of controlling small populations
of invasive species; and periodically providing quick-delivery funds for emergency
control actions. Trust fund mechanisms would be appropriate for these funding needs.
Eradication of bigger populations may require up-front sums larger than will be
available through the trust fund. These large-scale campaigns would typically require
the Category C type funding referred to in item 1. The trust fund would indirectly
H- 4
Recommendation
Impact on Design
improve the ability to generate such funding, by covering the core costs of invasive
species controls. Donors would be convinced of the sustainability of their interventions.
Donor confidence and support for projects would be increased as they would form part
of the Bio-invasion Control Plan to be developed under this Project and would be well
programmed, fully-costed ex ante, and based on proven methods. Finally, although
larger eradication campaigns would require these additional project-specific resources,
it is unlikely that funding needs would be excessively high because the improved
prevention and control measures instituted through the GEF Alternative would prevent
mega-scale populations of alien species from establishing themselves in the Islands.
A legal framework that permits
establishing a trust fund,
foundation or similar
organization.
Tax laws allowing such a fund
to be tax exempt, and providing
incentives for donations from
private contributors.
A critical mass of people with a
common vision. People from
NGOs, the academic and
private sector, and donor
agencies -- the environment
community” – who can work
together despite their different
approaches to biodiversity
conservation.
The support and involvement of
business leaders is crucial to
bring in private sector
management skills, especially
skills in financial
management”.
A basic fabric of legal and
financial practices and
supporting institutions
(including banking, auditing
and contracting) in which
people have confidence.
The Ecuadorian Civil Code (Codigo Civil) allows for the creation of non-profit, nongovernmental foundations, including for environmental management. The nation’s tax
framework (Ley de Regimen Tributario Interno) allows for the exemption of
foundations created for charitable purposes from tax liabilities. The CDF has a formal
agreement with the government (signed in 1959, currently valid until 2016, and
automatically renewable) which confers tax exemption upon them. SLG Article 67
establishes that private contributions for conservation-related activities in the
Galapagos, including the eradication of introduced species, could be eligible for
income-tax deductions following approval of INGALA.
The creation of a dedicated financial mechanism for the Galapagos, using the aforementioned approach, is fully supported by the GNPS/GoE. It is also compatible with the
initiative to create an Ecuadorian Environment Trust Fund; this excludes the control of
invasive species in Galapagos because of the new regional autonomy conferred to this
Province in the SGL. Furthermore, the CDF has held a long partnership with the GoE,
particularly the GNPS, and is increasingly forging links with other national and
international NGOs such as WWF, the academic and private sector, and donor agencies.
It has a 25 member General Assembly including founder members and representatives
of international and national organizations. Ex officio members include the President of
Ecuador, Ministers of Environment, External Relations, Tourism, Orstom, Max Plank,
and the Smithsonian Institute amongst others.
In addition to the high-level and broad-based support of CDF, there is growing private
sector support for CDF and the GNPS operations, particularly from the tourism sector.
Despite any potential differences that these stakeholders may have in their approaches
to biodiversity conservation, there have a shared understanding of the main issues that
threaten the Galapagos. All would contribute to, and provide broad support for, the fund
and private sector management skills would be leveraged from relevant stakeholders
during the restructuring phase and fund-raising campaign.
A number of international Banks have branch offices in Ecuador, including City Bank,
ABN Amro Bank; Lloyds Bank, and ING-Barings, and provide a broad range of
financial services. Several accounting firms have branch offices in Quito, including
Price Waterhouse, Ernst and Young, Deloitte and Touche, and Arthur Anderson. These
companies are able to provide a range of services, including accounting and
management consulting services. The formalization of an agreement between the trustee
and an acceptable asset manager will be a pre-condition for the release of seed capital
by the Global Environment Facility into the endowment
H- 5
Recommendation
Impact on Design
Availability of one or more
mentors – a donor agency with
good program support, a
partnership with an
international NGO, “twinning”
with another, more experienced
trust fund -- who can provide
both moral and technical
support to the fund.
UNDP will provide support to the fund in a mentor capacity, and will be represented on
the board of trustees in an ex officio capacity. The Friends of the Charles Darwin
Foundation would provide backstopping for the fund through its affiliate organisations.
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) will provide technical support to the fund as
required, including for the development of operations manuals and building
administrative capacities. An international NGO will be represented on the Board of
Trustees.
11.
An Operations Unit will be created within the CDF in Ecuador to administer the fund’s activities,
monitoring field-activities, and co-ordinating affairs between the major parties involved, including CDF,
GNPS, FOG organisations, UNESCO, UNF and GEF. The fund will be serviced by an offshore asset
manager, with a strong performance record and experience supporting national environment funds, that will
advise on investment strategies, and invest the assets within pre-agreed risk and disbursement parameters.
The Operations unit will help co-ordinate fund-raising, but the actual function will be sub contracted to a
experienced private firm. Because of the simplicity of this approach, administrative costs of the Fund itself
are expected to be far below 20% of income, even before the corpus has reached the end-of-project capitaltarget.
12.
The present DSF board is fully non-governmental, with the following members:- Mr. S. Dillon
Ripley, Secretary Emeritus of the Smithsonian Institution (Chairman); Mr Robert McAdams, Secretary of
the Smithsonian Institution; Mr. Charles J Hedlund, Chairman Emeritus of The Nature Conservancy; the
CDF President, Vice-President and Secretary General; Mr John Eaton Esq. and Mr John Lastavica, Bank
Treasurer and Professor of Finance and Computer Sciences. Following further consultations, and in
compliance with GEF recommendations, changes will be made in the present governance structure of the
DSF to ensure that it is able to discharge its duties as Trustee independently and effectively, to include
government representation on the board, and ensure there is no majority representation on it of any
organisation that will be a recipient of grants. It is expected that the new board will have 9 members, with a
balanced mix of prestigious figures from GNPS, the MMA, CDF, NGOs, businesses and donor agencies.
Capitalisation
13.
A dedicated sub-account will be created within the DSF to hold the assets of the fund. The GEF
would provide US$ 5 million in seed capital for the fund, to be matched on a 2:1 basis by funding secured
from other sources (providing a capital base of US$ 15 million). GEF Funds would be released subject to
independent authentication that the necessary governing and administrative framework and protocols are in
place. The capital targets will be met through intensive fund-raising to be led by CDF but involving various
other players whose combined qualities, together with the world renown of Galapagos itself, have the
potential to engender a powerful campaign. In addition to the FOG organisations’ 10,000 members and
former visitors to the Galapagos, the CDF also has some very distinguished and well-connected members
and a network of foundations and individuals, which have made substantial donations in the past. Selected
foundations, such as Frankfurt Zoological Society and WWF, with a strong commitment to the
conservation of the Galapagos, have been approached about the possibilities of collaborating in the fundraising effort for the Trust Fund. A number of extremely wealthy recent visitors to the archipelago have
also been approached. Furthermore, CDF and GNPS have close relations with the major Galapagos tour
operators, several of whom are becoming much more active in helping to generate funds for conservation.
14.
Through a joint CDF and UNESCO World Heritage Centre initiative, seed funding for fund
capitalisation has been secured from UNF. This will take the form of a US$ 1 million challenge grant to be
released once CDF has raised an additional US$ 1 million from private sources. Negotiations to secure the
H- 6
matching grant are well advanced. In addition to the challenge grant, UNF will bring great commercial
sector expertise and connections to the initiative and will assist with the fund-raising effort. UNESCO will
also participate in fund-raising through the World Heritage Committee and personalities, such as the UN
Secretary General, UNESCO Director General, and UN and UNESCO Ambassadors. IUCN, which like
UNESCO, has been associated with CDF since its formation in 1959, may also be approached to assist the
campaign.
15.
UNDP would negotiate a Tri partite Agreement with the Government of Ecuador (as recipient) and
the DSF (as the Trustee and asset holder) as a basis for remitting funds to the endowment40. The
Government of Ecuador has agreed to the above arrangements, and would be represented on the Governing
Board of the Fund.
Restructuring and Operations Support
16.
In addition to fund raising activities, GEF resources would also provide technical expertise for
restructuring the DSF to enable it to fulfil its function as Trustee, and taking into full account the
recommendations of the GEF Evaluation of Conservation Trust Funds. The following steps will be
undertaken to build the necessary governance and administrative structures needed to operate the fund. The
successful completion of these activities will be a pre-requisite for the release of GEF seed capital into the
endowment.
- Establish new Governing Board for DSF
- Determine procedures for permitting the already established and widely supported CDF General
Assembly to advise the Board on management needs and funding priorities
- Undertake further consultations with primary stakeholders regarding the modalities for Fund operations
- Revise the Bylaws of the DSF, addressing its broader objectives and activities and building in
safeguards to ensure that the objectives of the sub-account are not frustrated
- Agree on the roles and responsibilities of the asset manager and criteria for selection of the manager
- Select Asset Manager through competitive process, and formalise agreement between the Manager and
DSF
- Agree on asset management strategy, with clear asset mix objectives to meet gross income
requirements, and asset management procedures
- Create in-country Fund Operations Unit in Ecuador to receive income and manage day to day
operations
- Prepare revised Operations Manual defining the rules and operational procedures of the fund, and
clearly articulating eligibility criteria for disbursements from the sub account for invasives species
management.
-
Prepare revised Monitoring and Evaluation Plan, with clear performance indices and assessment
procedures
-
Perform independent evaluation of design elements, as a basis for committing GEF funds to the Fund
-
Negotiate Terms and Conditions for the release of GEF Funds into the endowment, including to ensure
the security of the assets, guard against the risk of attachment, establish procurement procedures, and
financial recording, reporting, and independent auditing procedures, and set dissolution requirements.
40
This agreement will be shared with the GEF Secretariat for comment prior to finalisation.
H- 7
ANNEX I. INSTITUTIONAL SUMMARIES AND STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
INSTITUTION
ROLE IN PROJECT
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Ministry of the Environment (ME) - This entity is  The ME will be the national sponsor of the project,
responsible for the formulation and co-ordination of
accountable to UNDP for project delivery, and for cothe country’s environmental policies and for leading
ordination, monitoring and general evaluation.
efforts to protect the nation’s terrestrial and marine  A Technical Advisory Group will support the Ministry in its
ecosystems.
monitoring and evaluation activities. This Group will comprise
international experts in invasive species control,
 The Galapagos Unit is the focal point for Galapagos
representatives of national environmental NGO's and the
within the Ministry. This unit, soon to be
president of the Fora created under output 5.
institutionalised and expanded *, is responsible for
co-ordinating and monitoring of projects executed in  The unit will co-ordinate baseline interventions and cothe archipelago.
financed activities. It will act as the focal point for the coordination of the project, ensure it is consistent with national
(* Currently one person performs this function)
environmental policies, and that new projects complement the
total control strategy. This unit will be the official link with
UNDP for project execution and will supervise its
administration.
2. The National Institute of Galapagos (INGALA)
 INGALA will be responsible for developing an assortment of
executes regional policies in the province. Before
policies, methodologies and instruments that aim at integrating
the SLG was approved, INGALA was responsible
IS Control objectives into regional planning. This will include
for executing infrastructure works. The SLG confers
the development of appropriate incentives and penalties –to be
upon it responsibilities for formulating and cosubmitted to relevant authorities for approval.
ordinating regional planning and providing technical  The Plan of Total Control of IS, to be developed under Output
assistance to local institutions. It is directed by a
2, will be revised and approved by INGALA
multi-sectoral Council, and receives technical inputs  INGALA is responsible for immigration control (a critical
from two committees (the Inter-institutional,
element of the project’s baseline).
Technical and Planning Co-ordination Committee
 The Council will approve policies developed within the
(ITPCC) and the Residence Control Committee
framework of the project, and revise existing ones in
(RCC).A Technical Unit executes decisions taken
accordance with the lessons learned during execution.
by the Council. It is currently being reorganised to

It will officially approve the Total Control of IS Plan.
enable it to better fulfil its new mandates. The
 The Council meetings provide an opportunity to periodically
Secretariat, directed by INGALA’s Manager.
inform INGALA on project delivery and progress and
 INGALA's Council determines policies and activities
facilitate inter-institutional co-ordination.
in Galapagos. It is chaired by the Governor of the
 The ITPCC will provide a technical forum for discussing ways
province and includes the following members:
and means of incorporating IS control into sectoral plans and
Ministers of the Environment, Finance and Public
policies for the province.
Credit, Tourism, National Defense, External
 The Secretariat will be responsible for the co-ordination of
Commerce, and the prefecture of Galapagos, the
Output 6, with assistance from the Project Management Unit,
three Mayors, representatives of the private sector
and for incorporating the invasive species overlay into local
(tourism, fishing and agriculture and livestock) and
and regional planning. It will also form part of the Directive
the President of the Ecuadorian Committee for the
Council to be established under Output 5.
Defense of the Environment- CEDENMA-The
Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) also participates
but has no voting rights.
3. The Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS) GNPS will administer the bulk of public baseline resources for
established at the time of creation of the National
conservation in Galapagos. Given its mandate, it will be the
Park in 1959, has the following responsibilities: i)
prime stakeholder under the project. The GNPS will coManaging and controlling the Park, ii) Protecting its
execute control and eradication activities with the CDF in
ecosystems and biodiversity, iii) Promoting
accordance with a Medium Term Agreement between these
scientific research with conservation goals, iv)
institutions.
1.
I- 1
INSTITUTION
ROLE IN PROJECT
 GNPS will also work with SESA to implement the inspection
and quarantine system and will be responsible for the delivery
of Output 3 within the bi-institutional agreement with CDF set
up for the Isabela project. This agreement will provide a
framework for the execution of activities under Output 3.
GNPS will act as Executive Secretariat for the Directive
Council and will execute decisions made by the Council as
they relate to this output.
Ecuadorian Service for Agriculture and Livestock
 According the SGL, the general policies for the Control of
Sanitation (SESA) falls under the political
Invasive Species will be collaboratively developed by GNPS
stewardship of MAG but has administrative
and the Ministry of Agriculture. SESA is responsible for
independence. It performs inspection and quarantine
executing the programmes, policies and projects that aim to
services at the national level. SESA implements the
prevent the introduction of invasive species to the islands. As
inspection and quarantine system for Galapagos
such it takes the lead role in the multi-institutional SICGAL
province by inspecting shipments bound for the
and is charged with putting this new system into place.
islands and inspecting consignments on arrival.

SESA- Galapagos, with the support of the GNPS, will be
SESA is responsible for sanitary control and the
responsible for operating the Inspection and Quarantine
certification of origin for Ecuadorian products. Due
System, as well as for monitoring in ‘hotspots’ for species
to the specific characteristics of Galapagos, its
introductions. It will take overall responsibility for the
participation in ports and airports is very important,
successful execution of Output 1.
in order to guarantee the execution of norms and
regulations that govern the flow of goods
(particularly food and livestock related products),
from the Continent to Galapagos.
SESA -Galapagos Division will be in charge of the
execution of the policies, rules and regulations
established for the System of Inspection and
Quarantine of Galapagos, in order to limit and
prevent the introduction and dispersion of invasive
species.
Agriculture and Livestock Provincial Office (DPA)  The DPA will be the co-executor of some activities under
is the the provincial line office of MAG
Output 6, particularly those related to the development of an
(Agriculture and Livestock Ministry). It supports
agricultural zone management strategy. Given the importance
development of the agricultural zone, in accordance
of this sector, the DPA will participate in the Consensus
with conservation objectives. Until the institutional
Forum created for general discussion and agreements on topics
legal agreements for SESA- Galapagos are finalised,
related to invasive species control. It will also play an
the DPA has been designated temporarily as the
important role in certain control and eradication actions in
official representation of SESA in Galapagos
agriculture zones, in accordance with art. 55 of the SLG.
province.
Conserving the unique habitat of the islands, and v)
Engaging local communities and visitors in
conservation activities.
4.


5.
6.
Local and Provincial Authorities. There are three
Municipalities in Galapagos (Puerto Ayora, San
Cristóbal and Villamil) and a Provincial Council.
 The Provincial Council was recently created, and
charged with a range of infrastructure construction
functions, which were previously under INGALA’s
responsibility.
 The Municipalities provide public services and
utilities in the urban area, especially sanitation and
potable water.
 The local authorities are responsible for executing public
works in occupied zones.
 The Provincial Council will be responsible for incorporating
Total Control of Invasive Species measures in the planning
and construction of infrastructure. It will follow the progress
of the project through the INGALA’s Council and it would
participate in the Consensus Forum.
 Within the project, the Municipalities will assist and
collaborate in activities requiring community participation,
particularly in the Fora, and in INGALA’s Council.They will
also undertake baseline activities related to control of
contamination (solid and liquid waste).
I- 2
INSTITUTION
ROLE IN PROJECT
NON-GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
7. The Charles Darwin Foundation (CDF) is an NGO
working collaboratively with the Ecuadorian State.
It was created 40 years ago, and has become the
most important NGO within the islands, taking the
lead in the provision of scientific imputs for
conservation efforts in Galapagos. The Foundation
has three branches: a Directive Council, the General
Secretary (located in Quito) and the Charles Darwin
Scientific Station (CDFRS), located in Puerto
Ayora. The CDF has several institutional associates
outside Ecuador (CDF Inc. in the USA, Friends of
Galapagos in Switzerland, Luxembourg and
Germany and the Galapagos Trust Conservation in
England. The associates will play an important role
in fund raising.
 The Directive Council approves the budget and
Operative Plan of the CDF and determines policy
orientations.
 The Secretary is the official representative of the
CDF to the National Government, co-ordinates the
execution of projects with other agencies and
donors, and participates in INGALA’s Council.
 The CDFRS develops research activities; provides
education and communication programmes, and
offers technical and scientific advice in
environmental matters.
8. Natura Foundation.- is a national NGO, located in
Quito; it is one of the most respected and prestigious
environmentalist institutions in the country, and has
important international recognition. Natura is
responsible for the execution of biological and
social monitoring under a medium size project
partly financed by GEF.
9.
Productive Sector Unions and Galapagos Residents.
A part of the resident population is organised in
associations that represent the productive sectors in
Galapagos: tourism, fishing and agriculture. These
sectors have been directly involved in the
formulation of the Special Law for Galapagos and
in the Plan for Conservation of the Marine Reserve.
They actively participate in the association that,
supports the Inter-Institutional Authority that
defines policies and strategies for the GMR. Their
active participation in the formulation of the SLG
resulted in their inclusion in INGALA’s Council,
with the same legal conditions as the public
members.
 The CDF will provide technical support for the
implementation of the Total Control Strategy and as such will
have a cross-cutting role in all project interventions.
Additionally, the CDF will be responsible for the successful
execution of several outputs and will co-execute others with
Government Agencies.
 The Council, which is constituted by experts on Galapagos,
will be the forum for discussing lessons learned from the
project.
 The General Secretary will be responsible for the handling of
Output 4 of the project (sustainable financing), together with
the international associates.
 The CDFRS will set-up a permanent research unit to develop
and support the Plan of Total Control of IS It will also
collaborate with SESA- Galapagos in the execution of the
Output, and with the INGALA in the execution of Output 6. It
will co-execute activities for Outputs 3 and 5 with the GNPS
and provide technical support to project monitoring and
programming.
 The CDFRS will be a member of the Council that will be
established under Output 5.
 Natura will participate in the Technical Advisory Group for
project monitoring and programming, thereby guaranteeing
close co-ordination with the GEF medium-size project.
 Due to the nature of its activities within the GEF/MSP, Natura
will be a member of the Directive Council for Output 5,
providing technical advisory functions.
 The community, particularly in the rural areas, will have an
active role in the project, by creating a Surveillance System.
 The Consensus Forum to be set up under Output 5 will
facilitate the participation of several sectors.
 The community will support and execute practices that
contribute to realisation of the Total Control Strategy.
 They will formally participate in monitoring the project and
assisting its co-ordination through the INGALA Council.
 They will be responsible for supporting a complementary
strategy for the protection and management of the marine
reserve, focusing on Total Control.
I- 3
ANNEX J: PROJECT CATEGORISATION SHEET
Focal Area Categories
Biodiversity
Climate Change
International Waters
Ozone Depletion
Conservation 
Energy conservation
(prod./distribution)
ESCO’s
Efficient
Designs
Transboundary Analysis
Monitoring:
Strat. Action Plan
Development
ODS phase out
(Production)
Solar:
Freshwater Basin
ODS Phase Out
(Consumption)
Other:
in situ
ex situ
Sustainable Use
Benefit-sharing
Biomass:
Wind:
Agrobiodiversity 
Hydro:
Trust fund 
Geothermal:
Ecotourism 
Biosafety
Fuel cells:
Policy &
Methane recovery:
Legislation 
Buffer Zone
Other:
Dev. 
b. Categories of General Interest
Investment 
Technical Assistance
Technology Transf.
Small Islands 
Marine Ecosystem 
Wetland Habitat 
Ship-based
Toxic Contaminants 
GPA Demonstration
Fisheries Protection 
Global Support:
Targeted Research 
Info/Awareness
Land Degrad. 
Private Sector
c. Community & NGO Participation
Involvement type
project design
CDF
Natura
Community
Associations
Ecociencias
WWF
Universities
Implementation
CDF
Community
Associations
J- 1
info/awareness
CDF
Community
Associations
consultation
CEDENMA
Natura
WWF
ANNEX K: REFERENCES
REFERENCES CITED
World Bank User
M:\RAMON\Bilateral\January2000\UNDP\Ecuador Final.doc
1/31/00 2:36 PM
Dinerstein, E. et al, 1995 “A Conservation Assessment of the Terrestrial Ecoregions of Latin America and the
Caribbean
[2]
Amador, Eduardo, Michael Bliemsrieder, Linda Cayot, Miguel Cifuentes, Eliecer Cruz, Felipe Cruz, and José
Rodríguez. 1996. Plan de Manejo del Parque Nacional Galápagos. Servicio Parque Nacional Galápagos and
INEFAN, Quito.
[3]
Tye, A. 1999. Personal communication. Head of plants and invertebrates conservation, Charles Darwin Research
Station.
[4]
Mauchamp, A. 1997. Threats from alien plant species in the Galápagos Islands. Conservation Biology 11 (1): 260263
[5]
Bensted-Smith, R. 1998. The war against aliens in Galapagos. World Conservation, Special Issue “Invaders from
Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN
[6]
Whelan, P.M. 1995. Una propuesta para el establecimiento de un sistema de inspección y cuarentena para las islas
Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin
[7]
Bensted-Smith, E. Cruz, F. Valverde. 1999. The strategy for conservation of terrestrial biodiversity in Galapagos.
Entomologie (Buletin de l’institut royal des sciences naturelles de Belgique). 68(supp.) 65-70
[9]
Anon. 1997. Plan for the protection of northern Isabela island, Galapagos National Park, Ecuador, from ecosystem
damage caused by feral ungulates. Charles Darwin Research Station, Galapagos National Park Service
[1]
=============================================================
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anon. 1985. Presión de los gatos en colonias de aves marinas. Carta Informativa 15: 4
Calles, A. y E. Muñoz. 1992. Salvation for the Hawaiian petrel: Successful rat control programmes save rare birds
and reptiles. Public Health (Bayer AG, Germany) 10: 6-11.
Chambers, A. 1991. Quarantine and Exports Operations Manual. Ministry of Agriculture, Tonga-Australian
Quarantine and Inspection Service.
Chambers, A. 1991. Competency standards for quarantine inspectors. AQIS.
Cruz, F. y J. B. Cruz. 1987. Control of black rats (Rattus rattus) and its effect on nesting dark-rumped petrels in the
Galápagos Islands. Vida Silvestre Neotropical 1 (2): 3-13
Cruz, Justine B. y Felipe Cruz. 1996. Conservation of the dark-rumped petrel Pterodroma phaeopygia of the
Galápagos Islands, 1982-1991. Bird Conservation International 6: 23-32.
Fowler de Neira, L. E. y J. H. Roe. 1984. Emergence success of tortoise nests and the effects of feral burros on nest
success on volcán Alcedo, Galápagos. Copeia 1984 (3): 702-707.
Gibbs, James P., Howard L. Snell, and Charlotte E. Causton. 1999. Effective monitoring for adaptive wildlife
management: Lessons from the Galapagos Islands. Journal of Wildlife Management 63 (4): 1055-1065.
Hamann, O. 1993. On vegetation recovery, goats and giant tortoises on Pinta Island, Galápagos, Ecuador.
Biodiversity and Conservation 2: 138-151.
Hamann, O. 1995. Las Islas Galápagos - Amenazas y protección de la flora de las Galápagos. En G. Zizka y K.
Klemmer, eds., Flora y Fauna de las Islas Galápagos: Origen, Investigación, Amenazas y Protección, pp. 111121, Palmengarten der Stadt, Frankfurt am Main.
Hamann, Ole. 1997. Conservation of endangered plants of the Galápagos: integrating conservation actions. In D. H.
Touchell and K. W. Dixon, eds., Conservation into the 21st Century: Proceedings of the 4th International Botanic
K- 1
Gardens Conservation Congress, Perth, Western Australia, pp. 137-150, Kings Park Botanic Garden and Botanic
Gardens Conservation International, West Perth.
Jäger, H., Tye, A. & Gerlach, A. In press. Impact of the introduced tree Cinchona pubescens on the native flora of
Santa Cruz Island, Galapagos. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Ecology of Invasive Plants,
Sardinia, October 1999.
Jones, S. 1997. Informe de datos de la encuesta del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas Galápagos.
Fundación Charles Darwin.
Konecny, M. J. 1987. Home range and activity patterns of feral house cats in the Galápagos Islands, Ecuador. Oikos
50 (1): 17-23.
Lehmberg, Katja. 1997. Estimating the value of the Galapagos National Park using the Travel Cost Method and the
Contingent Valuation. M.Sc. thesis, University of London (Wye College), 31 pp.
MacDonald, I. A. W., L. Ortiz, J. E. Lawesson y J. B. Nowak. 1988. The invasion of highlands in Galápagos by the
red quinine tree Cinchona succirubra. Environmental Conservation 15 (3): 215-220.
Moll, Eugene J. 1998. A further report on the distribution of introduced plants on Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos.
University of Queensland School of Natural and Rural Systems Management Occasional Paper 5 (1): 1-82.
Morillo, Germán and Linda J. Cayot. 1996. Estado poblacional de la tortuga gigante de Galápagos de la isla Pinzón.
In Jaime E. Péfaur, ed., Herpetología Neotropical: Actas del II Congreso Latinoamericano de Herpetología, pp.
203-216.
Muñoz, E. 1993. Control experimental de rata negra en la zona de anidación de los galápagos, isla Pinzón. En G.
Davis-Merlen, ed., 1988-1989 Informe Anual de la ECChD, pp. 140-142, Fundación Charles Darwin, Quito.
Ospina, P. 1998. Eradication and quarantine: Two ways to save the islands. World Conservation, Special Issue
“Invaders from Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN.
Robalino, G. 1997. Manual técnico de normas y procedimientos de inspección, certificación y control cuarentenario
para las islas Galápagos. SESA.
Rosenberg, D. K. 1990. The impact of introduced herbivores on the Galápagos rail (Laterallus spilonotus).
Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden 32: 169-178.
Schofield, E. K. 1989. Effects of introduced plants and animals on island vegetation: Examples from the Galápagos
Archipelago, Ecuador. Conservation Biology 3 (3): 227-238.
Soria, Mónica. 1998. Evaluación de la regeneración natural del matazarno Piscidia carthagenensis (Leguminosae) en
la isla Santa Cruz, Galápagos, y un aporte educativo a la conservación de la especie. Tesis de Licenciatura,
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador, Quito. 214 pp.
Tye, A. 1998. Alien plants and invertebrates: Turning the tide?. World Conservation, Special Issue “Invaders from
Planet Earth”, 4/97 – 1/98. IUCN.
Whelan, P.M. 1994. Un diagnostico para el establecimiento de un sistema de inspección y cuarentena para las islas
Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.
Zapata, C. E. y Causton, C.E. 1998. Plan de Inicio del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas Galápagos.
Fundación Charles Darwin.
Zapata, C.E. y Causton, C.E. 1999. Análisis de las necesidades del Sistema de Inspección y Cuarentena para las Islas
Galápagos. Fundación Charles Darwin.
K- 2