SPAW/RAC M.Anselme / S.Defranoux

REPORT OF THE ELECTRONIC WORKING REPORT OF THE ELECTRONIC WORKING GROUPGROUP

UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/INF.12UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/INF.12

Third STAC to the SPAW ProtocolThird STAC to the SPAW Protocol

Caracas, Venezuela, 4 – 8 October 2005Caracas, Venezuela, 4 – 8 October 2005

GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROTECTED AREAS TO BE EVALUATION OF PROTECTED AREAS TO BE

LISTED UNDER THE SPAW PROTOCOLLISTED UNDER THE SPAW PROTOCOL UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/3UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/3UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (1)BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (1)

• During STAC2 in Curaçao in 2003, During STAC2 in Curaçao in 2003, the Secretariat and the the Secretariat and the SPAW/RAC were entrusted with the responsibility to prepare SPAW/RAC were entrusted with the responsibility to prepare draft guidelines and criteria for the listing of protected areas.draft guidelines and criteria for the listing of protected areas.

• Consultations through the SPAW list server in September 2003 Consultations through the SPAW list server in September 2003 in order to establish an informal electronic working groupin order to establish an informal electronic working group

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (2)BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (2)

• The SPAW/RAC and the UNEP-CAR/RCU organized a Workshop The SPAW/RAC and the UNEP-CAR/RCU organized a Workshop to review and further develop the documents prepared by the to review and further develop the documents prepared by the Workgroup in Gosier, Guadeloupe,19-23 April 2004.Workgroup in Gosier, Guadeloupe,19-23 April 2004.

• The revised draft was submitted to the COP III of SPAW, The revised draft was submitted to the COP III of SPAW, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 27 September 2004.Montego Bay, Jamaica, 27 September 2004.

OUTCOMES AND DOCUMENTSOUTCOMES AND DOCUMENTS

• Final Draft Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be listed under the SPAW Protocol (UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4) 

• Revised Draft Annotated Format for Presentation Reports for the Areas proposed for inclusion in the SPAW Protected Areas List (UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/3). 

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (1)

• This document was developed in1996 and published as CEP Technical Report n° 37. This Report would need substantive updating in light of the PA concept evolution during the last years

Preliminary observations of the group:

• The requirement of Article 7 of the SPAW Protocol is intrinsically linked to Article 21 and the "Common Guidelines and Criteria for Identification, Selection, Establishment and Management of Protected Areas in the Wider Caribbean Region" developed pursuant to this Article

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (2)

• At first, focus on guidelines for evaluation and listing of PA's to be presented at the workshop, and while working on this make note if, or where, this might require changes in TR 37, so the workshop could then also produce recommendations on how to proceed with TR 37

Terms of Reference of the group:

• If the group finds a point where work on the listing guidelines cannot proceed without working on TR 37, the group can deal with that particular issue then and there or use other relevant references to fill the gaps identified.

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (3)

• The distinction between mandatory criteria from alternative or cumulative (“must”, “should” or “may”)

Issues difficult to resolve:

• The term “management plan”

• The Grid for the Objective Evaluation of Proposals for inclusion in the SPAW Protected Areas not agreed

• Protected Areas on the High seas not included

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (4)

• The SPAW List of protected areas will contribute to create a regional network (Art. 7);

Points of consensus : A network A network

• The network will contribute to the effective conservation of the Caribbean natural heritage;

• The network should ultimately comprise a comprehensive and representative system of protected areas in the Wider Caribbean Region.

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (5)

• The Protected Areas must have a management framework adopted by the Party;

Points of consensus by the Working group:

• A monitoring programme that allows to assess the effectiveness of the management framework is mandatory.

• Conservation and management objectives for the area must be clearly defined;

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (6)

• The Protected Areas will be selected not only on ecological and The Protected Areas will be selected not only on ecological and scientific value but also on socio-economic and cultural scientific value but also on socio-economic and cultural interest; interest;

Points of consensus by COP3:

• It will be mandatory to fulfil at least one of the Cultural and It will be mandatory to fulfil at least one of the Cultural and Socio-economic Criteria mentioned.Socio-economic Criteria mentioned.

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (7)

• Development of a draft Annotated Format for Presentation Reports for the area proposed for inclusion under SPAW Protected Areas List: UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4

Other issues :

• Technical Report N° 37 Due to time constraints, this work has not been undertaken.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION