REPORT OF THE ELECTRONIC WORKING GROUP UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/INF.12 GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR THE EVALUATION OF PROTECTED AREAS TO BE LISTED UNDER THE SPAW PROTOCOL UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/3 UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4 REPORT OF THE ELECTRONIC WORKING GROUP UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/INF.12 Third STAC to the SPAW Protocol Caracas, Venezuela, 4 – 8 October 2005 SPAW/RAC M.Anselme / S.Defranoux

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (1) During STAC2 in Curaçao in 2003, the Secretariat and the SPAW/RAC were entrusted with the responsibility to prepare draft guidelines and criteria for the listing of protected areas. Consultations through the SPAW list server in September 2003 in order to establish an informal electronic working group Background and development process (1):   During the Second Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC II) of the SPAW Protocol held in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles, 3-6 June 2003, the Secretariat and the SPAW/RAC were entrusted with the responsibility to initiate the preparation of the draft guidelines and criteria for the listing of protected areas under the SPAW Protocol. For this purpose, and in accordance with the recommendation IV of the STAC II, consultations were initiated through the SPAW list server in September 2003 in order to establish an informal electronic Working Group, consisting of experts, and coordinated by the SPAW/RAC.

BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESS (2) The SPAW/RAC and the UNEP-CAR/RCU organized a Workshop to review and further develop the documents prepared by the Workgroup in Gosier, Guadeloupe,19-23 April 2004. The revised draft was submitted to the COP III of SPAW, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 27 September 2004. Background and development process (2):   The SPAW/RAC and the UNEP-CAR/RCU organized a Workshop to review and further develop the documents prepared by the Working group in Gosier, Guadeloupe,19-23 April 2004. This workshop was fully funded by the Government of France. It was agreed that the Working Group would continue working on the Guidelines development through the electronic Working Group. The revised draft was submitted to the COP III of SPAW, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 27 September 2004. The COP decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group and requested the Group to continue its work towards the finalization of the guidelines for presentation to the Third Meeting of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC).

OUTCOMES 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).  The outcomes of this work is submitted to the Meeting under the references: - Final Draft Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be listed under the SPAW Protocol (UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/3) and ; Revised Draft Annotated Format for Presentation Reports for the Areas proposed for inclusion in the SPAW Protected Areas List (UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4). 

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (1) 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 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 At the end of October 2003, the Working Group began its work in the form of an electronic group.  From the onset, the members of the group made the following observations: -The Group noted that 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. This document had been developed in 1996 and published as CEP Technical Report n° 37. It seems to the group that this Report would need substantive updating in light of the PA concept evolution in recent years.  In addition, this document has not been approved by the Contracting Parties as it was published before the Protocol entered into force. It is apparent that the TR 37 should be updated, even if its general content remains valid.

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (2) Terms of Reference of the group: 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 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. Taking into consideration these observations and the recommendations of the STAC II, the members agreed to develop more specific terms regarding the mandate of the Working Group. Bearing in mind that the main goal of the group is to "draft guidelines and criteria for the evaluation of protected areas to be listed under SPAW Protocol" the group decided to proceed as following: - 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. - 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) Issues difficult to resolve: The distinction between mandatory criteria from alternative or cumulative (“must”, “should” or “may”) The term “management plan” Protected Areas on the High seas not included The Grid for the Objective Evaluation of Proposals for inclusion in the SPAW Protected Areas not agreed The following point were lengthy discussed: Some criteria will be mandatory and others alternative or cumulative. The distinction between mandatory criteria from alternative or cumulative one is made by mentioning respectively “must, should or may”; It was agreed that a protected area must have a legal status, guaranteeing its effective long-term protection. But the term “management plan” has not been kept because it was judged too restrictive, we agreed to use the term “Management Framework instead; It was also noted that “Protected Areas on the High seas” could not be included in the SPAW List because there are located outside of the geographic area of the Cartagena Convention; The Draft Grid for the Objective Evaluation of Proposals for inclusion in the SPAW Protected Areas List has been abandoned because judged inadequate

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (4) Points of consensus : A network The SPAW List of protected areas will contribute to create a regional network (Art. 7); 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. It has been agreed that: The SPAW List of protected areas will contribute to create a regional network of protected areas and develop a cooperation programme as per article 7. The regional network will also contribute to achieving the targets of international treaty frameworks including but not limited to the objectives of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD, 26 August- 4 September, 2002) and of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); The Protected Areas will together form a network, which will contribute to the effective conservation of the Caribbean natural heritage ; The network should ultimately comprise a comprehensive and ecological representative system of protected areas in the Wider Caribbean Region ;

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (5) Points of consensus by the Working group: The Protected Areas must have a management framework adopted by the Party; Conservation and management objectives for the area must be clearly defined; A monitoring programme that allows to assess the effectiveness of the management framework is mandatory. It has been agreed that: The protected area must have a management framework that has been adopted by the Party and specifies the legal and institutional framework and protection measures applicable to the area consistent with Article 6 of the Protocol Conservation and management objectives for the area must be clearly defined in nomination documentation, management guidelines and the management framework and be implemented by the measures consistent with Article 5.2. A monitoring programme that allows to assess the effectiveness of the management framework is mandatory;

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (6) Points of consensus by COP3: The Protected Areas will be selected not only on ecological and scientific value but also on socio-economic and cultural interest; It will be mandatory to fulfil at least one of the Cultural and Socio-economic Criteria mentioned. It has been agreed by the 3rd COP that: The Protected Areas will be selected not only on ecological and scientific value but also on socio-economic and cultural interest; With regard to the “Cultural and Socio-economic Criteria”, there was consensus that it would be mandatory to fulfil at least one of the criteria mentioned;

MAIN ASPECTS DISCUSSED (7) Other issues : 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 Technical Report N° 37 Due to time constraints, this work has not been undertaken. The group also developed a draft Annotated Format for Presentation Reports for the area proposed for inclusion under SPAW Protected Areas List: UNEP(DEC)/CAR WG.29/4. The aim of this annotated format is to assist Contracting parties to develop reports containing comparable information necessary to evaluate the proposed areas in compliance with the guidelines established; Also, Workshop participants in Guadeloupe and COP III delegates requested the Working Group to deal with the update of the existing common protected area criteria and guidelines developed under Article 21 (Technical Report N°37) and to submit it to the STAC. Due to time constraints, this work has not been undertaken.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION