NACIONES UNIDAS

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente

EP Distr. LIMITADA UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 3 de noviembre de 2014 Original: INGLÉS

Sexta Reunión del Comité Asesor Científico y Técnico (STAC) al Protocolo Relativo a las Áreas y Flora y Fauna Silvestres Especialmente Protegidas (SPAW) en la Región del Gran Caribe Cartagena, Colombia, 8 de diciembre de 2014

INFORME SOBRE LA EVALUACIÓN DE LAS ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS PROPUESTAS PARA EL LISTADO BAJO EL PROTOCOLO SPAW

Acción a Tomar: La Sexta STAC SPAW (STAC6) es invitada a examinar este informe y a hacer recomendaciones a la Octava Reunión de las Partes Contratantes (COP8) al Protocolo SPAW con respecto a la lista de las Áreas Protegidas propuestas y presentadas bajo el Protocolo SPAW por las Partes (Anexo III).

Por razones de economía y de medio ambiente, se solicita amablemente a los Delegados bajar de Internet y traer sus copias de los Documentos de Trabajo y Documentos de Información de la Reunión y no solicitar copias adicionales. * Este documento ha sido reproducido sin edición formal.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página i ÍNDICE

I.

Antecedentes ..........................................................................................................................................................1

II. Resumen de las Actividades para el Período 2012-2014 ........................................................................................1 a) Lanzamiento del Programa de Cooperación para las Áreas Protegidas Listadas: ...........................................1 b) Lanzamiento del nuevo proceso de inclusión en lista de las Áreas Protegidas para su presentación en la COP8 de SPAW ...............................................................................................................................................3 ANEXOS ......................................................................................................................................................................4 ANEXO I: CARTA DEL CENTRO REGIONAL DE ACTIVIDAD DE SPAW A NOMBRE DE LA SECRETARÍA DE SPAW A LOS PUNTOS FOCALES DE LAS PARTES CONTRATANTES DE SPAW (8 DE ABRIL DE 2014) PARA ANUNCIAR QUE EL PROCESO DE INCLUSIÓN DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS DEL CARIBE BAJO EL PROTOCOLO SPAW HA SIDO LANZADO PARA LAS PARTES CONTRATANTES E INVITARLES A PRESENTAR SUS ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS PARA INCLUSION EN LA LISTA BAJO SPAW .................................4 ANEXO II: LISTA DE MIEMBROS DEL “GRUPO DE TRABAJO DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS” .........................6 ANEXO III: RESULTADOS DE LA REVISIÓN DE LOS INFORMES DE PRESENTACIÓN HECHOS POR EL GRUPO DE TRABAJO SOBRE LA EVALUACIÓN DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS PROPUESTAS PARA INCLUSIÓN EN LA LISTA BAJO EL PROTOCOLO SPAW .....................................................................................7 ANEXO IV: MAPAS DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS INCLUIDAS EN LAS LISTAS DE SPAW EN 2012, ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS A SER INCLUIDAS EN LAS LISTAS EN 2014 Y ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS DE SPAW A LAS CUALES SE ASIGNARON PROYECTOS DENTRO DEL PROGRAMA DE COOPERACIÓN ........................... 21 ANEXO V: DOCUMENTOS SOBRE ACTIVIDADES EMPRENDIDAS POR LA SECRETARÍA DE SPAW EN APOYO AL PROGRAMA DE COOPERACIÓN PARA LAS ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS LISTADAS ........................ 22

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 1 I.

Antecedentes

1.

El listado de Áreas Protegidas bajo el Protocolo de Áreas y Flora y Fauna Silvestres Especialmente Protegidas (SPAW), de conformidad con el Artículo 7, ha sido tomada como prioridad desde 2004 por sucesivas Conferencias de las Partes. Esta directiva también incluye elaborar un programa de cooperación para las áreas protegidas listadas y contribuirá al fortalecimiento de redes ecológicas de Áreas Marinas Protegidas (AMP).

2.

Las Directrices y Criterios para la Evaluación de Áreas Protegidas a ser listadas bajo el Protocolo SPAW fueron elaborados por un grupo de trabajo de expertos propuestos por las Partes Contratantes al SPAW, el cual también produjo un formato de informe que pretende ayudar a las Partes a preparar sus informes de presentación de las Áreas Protegidas (AP) que desean proponer para el listado. Las Directrices fueron adoptadas por la Quinta Reunión de las Partes Contratantes (COP5) al Protocolo SPAW (St. John’s, Antigua, 8 de septiembre de 2008) y el formato del informe fue adoptado durante la Sexta COP en Montego Bay, Jamaica, 5 de octubre de 2010.

3.

Las siguientes nueve Áreas Protegidas que participaron en el proyecto piloto para probar el formato fueron provisionalmente aprobadas por la COP6 de SPAW para el listado bajo SPAW: -Belice: Hol Chan Marine Reserve y Glover’s Reef Marine Reserve; -Colombia: Santuario Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta y Área Marina Protegida Regional Seaflower en el Archipiélago de San Andrés y Providencia; -Francia: Reserva Natural de la Isla Grand Connétable (Guyana Francesa) y el Parque Nacional de Guadalupe; -Países Bajos: Parque Nacional Marino de Bonaire y el Parque Nacional Quill and Boven en St. Eustatius; -Estados Unidos de América: Santuario Marino Nacional de los Cayos de la Florida.

4.

Además de las recomendaciones y decisiones de la COP6 de SPAW y en estrecha colaboración y con la orientación del Grupo de Trabajo, una herramienta en internet similar al formato del informe fue desarrollada (julio 2010 - marzo 2011) por el SPAW-RAC para ofrecer la posibilidad a las Partes de preparar y enviar informes por internet si así lo desean, ya que el uso de esta herramienta internet fue establecida como opcional.

5.

Una base de datos también fue desarrollada dentro del mismo marco para albergar los datos provistos en los informes y para facilitar la futura compilación y análisis de las características de las Áreas Protegidas listadas bajo el Protocolo SPAW. La herramienta final en internet fue probada en el verano de 2011 y se encuentra disponible en: http://www.spaw-palisting.org/

6.

La Secretaría de SPAW anunció formalmente en diciembre de 2011 a las Partes el proceso para listar áreas protegidas y les invitó a presentar ante la COP7 las áreas protegidas a incluir bajo SPAW. Las dieciocho (18) áreas protegidas presentadas en la STAC5 para inclusión bajo el Protocolo SPAW fueron aprobadas por la COP7 (ver el mapa adjunto en el Anexo IV): - Belice: Reserva Marina de Hol Chan y Reserva Marina del Arrecife Glover; - Colombia: Santuario Ciénaga Grande de Santa Marta y Área Marina Protegida Regional Seaflower en el Archipiélago de San Andrés y Providencia; - Guyana Francesa (Francia): Reserva Natural de la Isla Grand Connétable; - Guadalupe (Francia): Parque Nacional de Guadalupe; - Bonaire (Países Bajos): Parque Nacional Marino de Bonaire; - St Eustatius (Países Bajos): Parque Nacional de Quill y Boven; - Estados Unidos de América: Santuario Marino Nacional de los Cayos de la Florida Keys; Parque Nacional Dry Tortugas en Florida; Parque Nacional Everglades en Florida; y Flower Garden en Texas (Golfo de México); - Cuba: Parque Nacional Guanahacabibes en Pinar del Río; - Saba (Países Bajos): Parque Nacional del Banco de Saba; - St Martin (Francia): Reserva Nacional de St Martin; y St Martin Lagoon Ponds; - Guadalupe (Francia): Reserva Nacional Petite-Terre; - Antillas Francesas (Francia): Santuario Agoa.

II. a) 7.

Resumen de las Actividades para el Período 2012-2014 : Lanzamiento del Programa de Cooperación para las Áreas Protegidas Listadas:

Con miras a fortalecer las áreas protegidas listadas bajo el Protocolo, el PAC-PNUMA con su Centro de Actividad Regional de SPAW lanzó en 2013 el Programa de Cooperación según lo dispuesto en el Artículo 7 del Protocolo SPAW (http://www.spaw-palisting.org/). Esta iniciativa fue incluida en el Plan de Trabajo de SPAW aprobado en la COP7 de SPAW.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 2 8.

Varias actividades fueron llevadas a cabo durante 2013-2014 para lanzar el Programa de Cooperación para las áreas protegidas: Se realizó una reunión de los encargados de las áreas durante la Conferencia anual de GCFI en Corpus Christi, Texas, el 5 de noviembre de 2013, para intercambiar ideas y proponer actividades (ver UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/INF.9). Los encargados también tuvieron oportunidad de quedarse para toda la Conferencia de GCFI, incluyendo la sesión de gestión y ciencias sobre AMPs (organizada cada año por SPAW a través de CaMPAM) -

9.

En base a las ideas recibidas por los encargados de los sitios SPAW en esta primera reunión, la Secretaría ejecutó las siguientes actividades en 2014:  Lista de contacto de los encargados de los sitios listados bajo SPAW (directorio completo disponible aquí);  Matriz de debilidades y fortalezas para cada sitio en las listas;  Fichas técnicas para cada AP de SPAW utilizando los datos provistos por las Partes para las áreas protegidas en la lista y revisadas por los encargados;  Todos los encargados de las AP en la lista de SPAW fueron incluidos en la lista de contactos sobre el pez león del Caribe;  Lista de beneficios sobre el "valor agregado” para los sitios en la lista. Los beneficios incluyen: Mayor reconocimiento y sensibilización como sitio de importancia local, regional y mundial  Orgullo local y nacional, lo cual resulta en responsabilidad nacional de apoyar su gestión;  Mayor visibilidad, lo cual resulta en posiblemente mayores oportunidades de empleo e ingresos (por ej. turismo, “mercadeo” del área);  Más probabilidad de beneficiarse de subvenciones de SPAW y otros tipos de asistencia (sitios se convierten en prioridad para la Secretaría de SPAW);  Oportunidades para mejorar capacidad, gestión, protección y sostenibilidad; y  Oportunidades de apoyo bajo otros temas de SPAW y del PAC (conservación de especies, control de la contaminación, gestión basada en el ecosistema).  Vínculos con el programa de tutoría de CaMPAM: tutores y pupilos identificados en las 18 AP (UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG/INF.5); y  Una sección del Boletín de Noticias de SPAW-RAC está ahora dedicada a los sitios listados bajo SPAW (http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/IMG/pdf/SPAW_Newsletter_No14.pdf).

Adicionalmente, la Secretaría lanzó el programa de cooperación ofreciendo pequeñas subvenciones de US$12.000 para apoyar las necesidades dentro de las AP listadas, así como para ayudar con nominaciones adicionales a aquellas Partes que expresaron su compromiso de enviar propuestas. Cinco subvenciones fueron otorgadas en noviembre de 2013 y han sido finalizadas a la fecha. Estas incluyen intercambios, capacitación, tutorías y otras actividades para fortalecer capacidades en la gestión de áreas protegidas y promover la inclusión de más AP en las listas. Los productos y principales resultados están disponibles en: http://campam.gcfi.org/SGF/SGFEng.php: -

“Fortalecimiento de la capacidad en cumplimiento de la ley en las Reservas Marinas de Hol Chan, Glover’s Reef y Port Honduras, Belice” al Toledo Institute for Development (TIDE) con la contribución del Departamento de Pesca de Belice; “Estrategias de gestión de especies invasoras exóticas: aprender y compartir mejores prácticas entre las áreas protegidas de las islas del norte”, al National Natural Réserve de Saint-Martin, IVB; “Experiencias compartidas entre el Parque Nacional de Guanahacabibes en Cuba y áreas protegidas de México y Belice”, para el Parque Nacional de Guanahacabibes con la contribución del Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (en Cuba) y el Grupo Tortuguero del Caribe AC (México); “Fortalecimiento de capacidades de pescadores artesanales explorando medios de vida alternativos amigables al ambiente en el AMP Seaflower, Colombia” para Blue Dream Ltd con la contribución de CORALINA; y “Programa de intercambio de educación sobre las naturaleza que ayude a desarrollar un Programa de Guardaparques Junior en Saba” para la Saba Conservation Foundation (SCF)” con la contribución de STINAPA Bonaire.

10. El programa de cooperación para las Partes también se encuentra integrado al resto de las actividades y recursos de CaMPAM (es decir, Capacitación de Capacitadores, Pequeñas Subvenciones, base de datos regional de AMP; trabajo en red y comunicación, programa de tutoría) para maximizar los beneficios y recursos a las Partes. 11. El SPAW-RAC completó en julio de 2014 dos nuevas herramientas en internet para generar estadísticas y realizar búsquedas entre los datos contenidos en los informes de las áreas protegidas listadas en SPAW. Ambas están disponibles en el sitio web dedicado al listado (www.spaw-palisting.org) con un mapa interactivo. Por favor visite www.spawpalisting.org/stats donde aparece un primer grupo de estadísticas producidas a partir de datos provistos por las Partes y www.spawpalisting.org/search, el cual ofrece una herramienta para explorar la base de datos.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 3

b)

Lanzamiento del nuevo proceso de listado de las Áreas Protegidas para su presentación en la COP8 de SPAW

12. Una vez finalizadas todas la directrices y herramientas necesarias en la internet, y en estrecha colaboración con el Grupo de Trabajo, el SPAW-RAC a nombre de la Secretaría invitó a las Partes Contratantes en abril de 2014 (adjunto como Anexo I a este informe) a considerar presentar Áreas Protegidas adicionales para ser listadas bajo SPAW en la Octava Conferencia de las Partes (9 de diciembre de 2014) y a iniciar la elaboración de los informes de presentación. 13. Como parte del Plan de Trabajo 2013-2014 aprobado para SPAW, el PAC-PNUMA y su Secretaría de SPAW, en colaboración con el GCFI apoyaron a las Partes comprometidas e interesadas en nominar áreas protegidas y que requerían asistencia (por ej. compilación de datos, preparación de informes, etc.). Las propuestas de nominación fueron aceptadas para estudio hasta el 30 de septiembre de 2014: Áreas Protegidas propuestas a la STAC6 y a la COP8 para el listado bajo el Protocolo SPAW: -

Colombia: Parque Natural Regional de Humedales entre los ríos León y Suriquí; El Reino de los Países Bajos: Parque Nacional Marino de Saba, Parque Nacional Marino de St Eustatius y Parque Marino Man O War Shoal (Sint Maarten); Francia: Reserva "Etang des Salines" y la Reserva "Versants Nord de la Montagne Pelée" en Martinica; Belice: Reserva Marina de Port Honduras; República Dominicana: Parque Submarino La Caleta, Parque Nacional Jaragua, Parque Nacional Haitises y Parque Nacional Sierra de Bahoruco; San Vicente y las Granadinas: Parque Marino del Cayo Tobago; y Granada: Reserva de Molinière-Beauséjour.

14. Para accesar los informes de AP presentados en 2014 visite http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?Protected-Areas-proposed-toSPAW,575. 15. Los informes que presentan áreas protegidas propuestas para listar bajo el SPAW han sido examinados por el SPAW-RAC como parte de la Secretaría de SPAW y como coordinador del Grupo de Trabajo para la Evaluación de Áreas Protegidas (la lista de miembros en el Anexo II). Se solicitó entonces al Grupo de Trabajo, a través del SPAW-RAC, examinar los informes de presentación (revisión externa). Los resultados de la revisión por parte de los expertos del Grupo de Trabajo se presentan en el Anexo III a este informe, con miras a facilitar la evaluación de los informes de presentación que realizará la STAC6 de SPAW.

Resumen de los principales comentarios de los expertos del Grupo de Trabajo:    

Todos los informes fueron completados de manera satisfactoria y no hacen falta documentos obligatorios. Los informes están completos y brindan información sobre todos los aspectos considerados importantes para la inclusión de las AP en la lista. Las áreas protegidas presentadas concuerdan con los Criterios para el listado bajo SPAW. No hubo comentarios negativos ni objeciones mayores sobre el listado recibido por parte de los miembros del Grupo de Trabajo cuando se les consultó sobre lo recibido.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 4

ANEXOS ANEXO I

CARTA DEL CENTRO REGIONAL DE ACTIVIDAD DE SPAW A NOMBRE DE LA SECRETARÍA DE SPAW A LOS PUNTOS FOCALES DE LAS PARTES CONTRATANTES DE SPAW (8 DE ABRIL DE 2014) PARA ANUNCIAR QUE EL PROCESO DE INCLUSIÓN DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS DEL CARIBE BAJO EL PROTOCOLO SPAW HA SIDO LANZADO PARA LAS PARTES CONTRATANTES E INVITARLES A PRESENTAR SUS ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS PARA INCLUSION EN LA LISTA BAJO SPAW

Letter to SPAW Focal points for potential SPAW nomination of PAs at SPAW COP8 November 2014 8 April 2014 From the RAC on behalf of UNEP-CEP To: SPAW Focal points From: Franck GOURDIN Programme Officer Regional Activity Center for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife SPAW/RAC – UNEP/CEP Dear SPAW Focal points, As you may know, in order to strengthen the marine protected areas of the wider Caribbean and particularly the ones located in the SPAW countries, the UNEP-CEP with its SPAW Regional Activity Center is implementing a cooperation programme aiming at providing assistance to the protected areas listed under SPAW (http://www.spaw-palisting.org/). This cooperation programme is included in the SPAW Work Plan discussed and approved in the last SPAW COP7 meeting held in Punta Cana on October, 2012 (http://www.cep.unep.org/meetings-events). Last year, the activities implemented were the following: 1. A meeting of SPAW-listed managers held at the GCFI conference in Corpus Christi, Texas, to exchange ideas and discussed the plan. The participants also had the chance to attend the entire conference including the presentation at the Protected Areas Science and Management” session (coordinated by CaMPAM each year) Please see attached the temporary report for your information. 2. The awarding of US$12,000 grants to assist PAs listed under SPAW or those that are committed to submit their nomination this year. 3. Integrate this initiative to the rest of CaMPAM activities and resources (Training of trainers, small grants, Regional MPA database; networking and communication, mentorship program) This message is to encourage you now as SPAW Focal points to work with your managers on the nomination of new Protected Areas that can enrich the List and benefit from its capacity building program. The benefits of inscribing PAs under SPAW are multiple, namely: · Increased recognition and awareness as a place of importance locally, regionally and globally · Local and national pride resulting in national responsibility to support management · Higher visibility resulting in possible increases in employment opportunities and income (e.g. tourism, “marketing” the area) · More likely to benefit from SPAW grants and other types of assistance (sites become priorities for SPAW Secretariat) · Opportunities for enhancing capacity, management, protection and sustainability · Opportunities for support under other areas of SPAW and CEP (species conservation, pollution control, EBM) The listing process is easy: the manager of the protected area creates a presentation report using this interface (http://www.spawpalisting.org), and includes the necessary supporting documentation and submits to its national SPAW Focal Point for approval. Once you have checked the report and asked for modifications if appropriate, you validate the report that is then sent to the SPAW-RAC.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 5 You can also use the standard reports to complete (available in English and Spanish): I can send them to you with the guidelines if needed. Upon reception of the report and after an overall assessment of its completion, the SPAW Secretariat with the support of the SPAW RAC conducts a standard evaluation process which includes external review, in order to determine whether the submitted protected area is consistent with the guidelines and common criteria adopted by the SPAW Parties. The results of this review will be presented to the SPAW Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for discussion and decision, and a consolidated tentative list of Protected Areas will be established for presentation at the next meeting SPAW Conference of the Parties for final adoption (COP 8 planned in November, 2014). The presentation reports should be prepared to be received by the Secretariat no later than July, 2014 (the evaluation process is long). For additional information on the SPAW Listing process, you can visit http://www.spaw-palisting.org/homepage/process, or contact us. We would be pleased to assist you in the process. We look forward to hearing from you, Best Regards, Franck GOURDIN Programme Officer Regional Activity Center for Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife SPAW/RAC – UNEP/CEP http://www.car-spaw-rac.org *****************************************************************************************************

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 6 ANEXO II LISTA DE MIEMBROS DEL “GRUPO DE TRABAJO DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS” Paul C. Hoetjes, Policy Coordinator Nature, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture & Innovation (EL&I), National Office for the Caribbean Netherlands, Kralendijk, Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands Contact: [email protected] Elizabeth McLanahan, Director (Acting), National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NOAA/NMFS/International Affairs, United States of America Contact: [email protected] Billy Causey, PhD, Southeast Regional Director for the National Marine Sanctuary Program, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration NOAA National Marine Protected Areas Center, United States of America Contact: [email protected] Georgina Bustamante, Ph.D. Coordinator Caribbean Marine Protected Area Management (CaMPAM) Network and Forum The UNEP-CEP capacity building program for MPA managers and stakeholders, Hollywood, Florida, USA Contact: [email protected] Lloyd Gardner, Environmental Support Services, Caribbean Protected Areas Management, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands of the United States Contact: [email protected] Susana Perera Valderrama, Especialista del Centro Nacional de Áreas Protegidas (CNAP), Cuba. Contact: [email protected] Alessandra Vanzella-Khouri, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Caribbean Environment Programme (CEP), Kingston, Jamaica WI Contact: [email protected] Kalli De Meyer, Director, Dutch Caribbean Nature Alliance, Bonaire, The Kingdom of Netherlands [email protected] Franck Gourdin, Programme Officer, Regional Activity Centre for the SPAW Protocol, Guadeloupe FWI Contact: [email protected]

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 7 ANEXO III

RESULTADOS DE LA REVISIÓN DE LOS INFORMES DE PRESENTACIÓN HECHOS POR EL GRUPO DE TRABAJO SOBRE LA EVALUACIÓN DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS PROPUESTAS PARA INCLUSIÓN EN LA LISTA BAJO EL PROTOCOLO SPAW Proceso estándar de evaluació por el Grupo de Trabajo sobre las Áreas Protegidas Revisión externa Nota: Al Grupo de Trabajo par alas áreas protegidas, establecido en 2007 para el desarrollo de las Directrices y el Formato Anotado se le consulta informalmente bajo el liderazgo y coordinación del Centro de Actividades Regional del SPAW para que haya una primera evaluación estándar al proceso de presentación de los informes (revisión externa). De manera seguida al Comité Asesor Científico y Técnico (STAC) examina los informes antes de ser presentados a la Conferencia de las Partes (9 de diciembre de 2014) para su adopción). El objetivo de este format es primero facilitar la revisión informal por parte de los expertos del Grupo de Trabajo de los informes de presentación y la transmisión de las comentarios principales al STAC. La primera sección resume los principales comentarios del SPAWRAC sobre el informe de la Parte, seguido de los comentarios y revisión hecha por los expertos de los formatos en la sección abajo.

_________________

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 8 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: the Regional Natural Park of wetlands between the rivers León and Suriquí - Colombia Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Five ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats. One Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Cultural and traditional use. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Gourdin Franck Country: Guadeloupe Position: Project Coordinator SPAW RAC Email contact:[email protected] Date of review: 10/10/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones. (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. This young Colombian PA has great potential and should be listed under SPAW. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) No. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assesment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 9 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: the Saba National Marine Park - The Kingdom of the Netherlands Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Gourdin Franck Country: Guadeloupe Position: Project Coordinator SPAW RAC Email contact:[email protected] Date of review: 10/13/2014 Name of the expert consulted: Lloyd Gardner Country: U.S. Virgin Islands Position: Environmental Planning Consultant, WCPA Regional Vice Chair Caribbean Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: October 15, 2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing. LG: Note: the management entity for the protected area does not have the regulatory authority to address some of the issues of concern listed in the report, particularly impact of land-based developments and oil/oil residues. CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) FG: Yes. This PA should be listed under SPAW. LG: Yes, at least: Conservation Value, Rarity (There is an assumption that the readers should know that sea mounts and hot springs are rare, but the statement of uniqueness and significance of the site is not supported by data or a reasoned argument), Connectivity. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) FG: Yes, at least Produtivity and Socio-economic benefits. LG: Socio-Economic Benefits Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. LG: The protected area meets the ecological and socio-economic criteria to be listed under the SPAW Protocol. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 10 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: Saint Eustatius National Marine Park - The Kingdom of the Netherlands Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Lloyd Gardner Country: U.S. Virgin Islands Position: Environmental Planning Consultant, WCPA Regional Vice Chair Caribbean Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: October 15, 2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. Representativeness, Conservation Value, Critical Habitats, Connectivity Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, at least Socio-economic benefits. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 11 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: The Man O War Shoal Marine Park (Sint Maarten) - The Kingdom of the Netherlands Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Date of review: 10/09/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, at least Socio-economic benefits Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 12 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: The Reserve "Etang des Salines" (Martinique) - France Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Four ecological Criteria proposed: Conservation value, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/Coherence. One Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Cultural and traditional use. External review by the experts : Date of review: 10/09/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. The manager must ensure control potential soil pollution by human activities ahead of the pond. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, Cultural and traditional use. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.34/3 Página 13 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: The Reserve "Versants Nord de la Montagne Pelée" (Martinique) - France Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Six ecological Criteria proposed: Conservation value, Rarity, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience. No Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed. External review by the experts : Date of review: 10/15/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. The Montagne Pelée North West Slope is a very representative ecological forest Continuum from mountain to shore. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) No. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 14 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: The Port Honduras Marine Reserve - Belize Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence and Resilience. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Paul Hoetjes Country: Netherlands Position: Policy Coordinator Nature Caribbean Netherlands Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: 10/10/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence and Resilience. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes. Productivity, Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. The ecological characteristics of the area and its size definitely warrant the protection of this area and it is clearly of regional importance. The management framework seems adequate. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.34/3 Página 15 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: La Caleta Submarine Park - Dominican Republic Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Seven ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Date of review: 10/15/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. This PA is definitely of regional importance, and the management body is effective and well organized. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) No. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 16 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: National Park Jaragua - Dominican Republic Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Seven ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Georgina Bustamante Country: USA Position: CaMPAM coordinator Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: 09/29/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. This PA seems to have the highest conservation value and information of all the Dominican Republic, especially with the work of Jaragua's group. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes. The management body has done monitoring and relevant projects with local communities for many years. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. Application of national regulations stipulated by zoning could be improved. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.34/3 Página 17 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: Reserve "Los Haitises" - Dominican Republic Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Seven ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence. Two Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Georgina Bustamante Country: USA Position: CaMPAM coordinator Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: Oct 16, 2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. At least: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness Connectivity/coherence; The mangrove areas are large and very important as nursery habitat for coastal and marine habitats of the Samana Bay. This PA is of high importance to the Wider Caribbean region. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, all: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. The park terrestrial and socio-economic/cultural characteristics are richly described but the marine conservation values are poorly described. There is no information about the fish community in mangroves and fish species are only mentioned in the Impact and threat section, as commercial fisheries. The conservation value of the mangrove habitat for fish is important and needs to be researched. Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 18 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: National Park "Sierra de Bahoruco" - Dominican Republic Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence and Resilience. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Gourdin Franck Country: Guadeloupe Position:Project Coordinator SPAW RAC Email contact:[email protected] Date of review: 10/13/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria ? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. Particularly because of its key position in Hispaniola and its specific richness (fauna and flora), the greatest PA of Dominican Republic should be listed under SPAW. Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, at least Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol ? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area Based upon the report, The Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.34/3 Página 19 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: Tobago Cays Marine Park - Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Eight ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness, Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence and Resilience. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Georgina Bustamante Country: USA Position: CaMPAM Coordinator Email contact:[email protected] Date of review: 10/14/2014 Name of the expert consulted: Paul Hoetjes Country: Caribbean Netherlands Position: Policy Coordinator Nature Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: 15 Oct 2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol ? If you did, which elements are missing ? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. At least: Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity and Critical habitats Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one ? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, at least Socio-economic benefits. Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. GB: This park allows to manage an area of the Grenadines, one of the only shallow water environments of southern Lesser Antilles. The extension of this protected area may require to be expanded to increase the resilience of the habitats, and the threats (habitat deterioration by excessive visitation and lack of mooring buoys and regulatins compliance) PH: Important area to protect as an example of a typical small cay system, with a comprehensive conservation scheme, and a dedicated management structure in place. Based upon the report, the Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 20 Name of the protected area for which the presentation report was submitted and country: "Molinière Beauséjour" Marine Protected Area - Grenada Summary of the SPAW-RAC's preliminary comments on the presentation report. The report is well completed. No mandatory documents missing. Four ecological Criteria proposed: Representativeness, Conservation value, Critical habitats and Diversity. Three Cultural and socio-economic Criteria proposed: Productivity, Cultural and traditional use and Socio-economic benefits. External review by the experts : Name of the expert consulted: Paul Hoetjes Country: Netherlands Position:Policy Coordinator Nature Caribbean Netherlands Email contact: [email protected] Date of review: 10/10/2014 According to you, did you find in the report mandatory information missing for the adequate evaluation of the conformity of the proposed site with the Guidelines and Criteria for the Evaluation of Protected Areas to be Listed under the SPAW Protocol? If you did, which elements are missing? (Content of the report: (I) Identification of the Proposed Protected Area, (II) Executive Summary, (III) Site Description, (IV) Ecological Criteria, (V) Cultural and Socio-Economic Criteria, (VI) Management, (VII) Monitoring and Evaluation, (VIII) Stakeholders, (IX) Implementation Mechanism, (X) Other Relevant Information). No mandatory elements missing. Nevertheless, a map for each of the major habitats could be provided to justify that this small area is sufficiently large to effectively protect the habitats in question. CRITERIA SATISFIED : Ecological criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one ecological Criteria? If you don't, please justify. If you did, which ones? (Proposed criteria for the PA listing process : Representativeness, Conservation value, Rarity, Naturalness (level of disturbance), Critical habitats, Diversity, Connectivity/coherence, Resilience) Yes. Representativeness, Conservation value, Critical habitats and Diversity Cultural and socio-economic criteria According to you, does the PA proposed satisfy at least one cultural and socio-economic benefits Criteria ? If you did, which one? (Productivity, Cultural and traditional use, Socio-economic benefits) Yes, at least Socio-economic benefits and Cultural and traditional use Global assessment of the proposal According to you and given the comments made in the above section, do you recommend the listing of the proposed Protected Area under the SPAW Protocol? Please provide a brief statement supporting your position with respect to the listing or not of the proposed Protected Area. The area appears to include coral reefs, mangrove and sea grass beds and as such warrants protection, but the area is also small and needs permanent close attention to ensure that its sensitive habitats are effectively protected. It appears to be actively managed with sufficient staff. Then, based upon the report, the Protected Area seems to match the Criteria for listing under SPAW. The report is comprehensive and presents on all the aspects considered as important by the Working Group on PA listing. Specific comments from the "Protected Areas" Working Group: None. Other Comments: No negative assessment or objection to the listing of this Protected Area under SPAW was received from any member of the Working Group when consulted on this submission.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.34/3 Página 21 ANEXO IV MAPAS DE ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS INCLUIDAS EN LAS LISTAS DE SPAW EN 2012, ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS A SER INCLUIDAS EN LAS LISTAS EN 2014 Y ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS DE SPAW A LAS CUALES SE ASIGNARON PROYECTOS DENTRO DEL PROGRAMA DE COOPERACIÓN

Todos los mapas están disponibles en http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?Maps-SPAW-Protected-Areas,579.

UNEP(DEPI)/CAR WG.36/3 Página 22

ANEXO V

DOCUMENTOS SOBRE ACTIVIDADES EMPRENDIDAS POR LA SECRETARÍA DE SPAW EN APOYO AL PROGRAMA DE COOPERACIÓN PARA LAS ÁREAS PROTEGIDAS LISTADAS

-

Contact list of SPAW-listed sites managers full directory available at: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?First-Meeting-of-Managers-of-the,571

-

Matrix of issues and strengths for each SPAW listed site document available at: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?First-Meeting-of-Managers-of-the,571

-

Factsheets for each SPAW Protected Area listed documents available at: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?Factsheets-for-protected-areas,549

-

Benefits of becoming part of the SPAW Protected Area List and Network (value added by the listing process) document available at: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/?First-Meeting-of-Managers-of-the,571

-

Dedicated section of the SPAW-RAC Newsletter to the SPAW-listed sites SPAW Newsletter available at: http://www.car-spaw-rac.org/IMG/pdf/SPAW_Newsletter_No14.pdf

-

Small grants awarded in 2013 outputs and main results are available at: http://campam.gcfi.org/SGF/SGFEng.php