- Evaluation Plan:
- 2014-2019, Mexico
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 08/2018
- Completion Date:
- 08/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 35,000
Fortalecimiento de manejo de especies invasoras (EvMT)
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TORS evaluadora internacional Especies Invasoras.docx |
tor | Spanish | 596.98 KB | Posted | 23 |
| 15373402811.docx |
tor | Spanish | 592.27 KB | Posted | 27 |
 Final report MTE GEF Mexico 01 August 2018-compressed.pdf |
report | English | 4715.91 KB | Posted | 27 |
| Informe final EMT México 01 agosto 2018-compressed.pdf |
report | Spanish | 4697.67 KB | Posted | 27 |
| Title | Fortalecimiento de manejo de especies invasoras (EvMT) | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 79321 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2014-2019, Mexico | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 08/2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 08/2018 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 35,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 29,166 | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Mandatory Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Countries: | MEXICO |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| Findings |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Midterm Review recommendation 1. Update the National List in coordination with government agencies in charge of the missing species. |
| 2 | Midterm Review recommendation 2. Consolidate risk assessment protocols in user-friendly systems (e.g. Excel) and adjust the rapid assessment protocol (MERI), providing validation tests to ensure there is no bias. Pursue options to formalize the use of risk assessment by agencies in charge of authorizing species imports for different uses in order to establish an impartial and consistent risk assessment process that includes biodiversity concerns. Pursue the inclusion of biodiversity criteria in risk assessment protocols used by SENASICA. |
| 3 | Midterm Review recommendation 3. Strengthen the sectors within SEMARNAT in charge of IAS in order to: a) improve IAS management, b) optimize authorization processes for eradication and control actions and to establish an expedited process for rapid response actions in EDRR systems in coordination with CONANP and c) ensure resources are available for the implementation of the National Strategy on Invasive Species. SEMARNAT personnel responsible for IAS management might require specific training to allow for pro-active institutional coordination with CONABIO, CONANP and other government agencies in complementary sectors in charge of species introductions or sectors that function as pathways and vectors of IAS introduction and spread. |
| 4 | Midterm Review recommendation 4. Replicate biosecurity protocols developed for ornamental fishes to other species in aquaculture, pursuing a public policy to support producers in the implementation of biosecurity measures. Considering that aquaculture represents an expanding market, many new introductions of fishes, biological invasions and impacts due to the escape of alien fishes from breeding stations can be avoided. |
| 5 | Midterm Review recommendation 5. Strengthen the Central CONANP Coordination for Invasive Alien Species by assigning more personnel or allowing the Coordination to be exclusively dedicated to IAS management. This will improve management efficiency and increase support to NPA in order to ensure that all pending actions in the project are implemented in due time, as well as for future replication to other NPA. A higher level of involvement by the Director for the Conservation of Priority Species is desirable, as this position is levelled with NPA Directors. This is especially relevant for decision-making in key moments to ensure implementation of prevention measures, EDRR and control of IAS. |
| 6 | Midterm Review recommendation 6. Control five invasive plant species in PN Arrecife Alacranes (planned for year 1) with support and permits issued by CONANP for mechanical and chemical control as needed and based on technical reference for each species and/or experts in invasive plant control. Conclude goat eradication on Espíritu Santo Island using the most viable methods and considering the cost-benefit ratio. Eradication must proceed based on hunting and complementary methods to ensure success. CONANP must support the work and provide the necessary permits for eradication to be achieved in a few months, as planned, to prevent the goat population from increasing, as well as the costs involved. |
| 7 | Midterm Review recommendation 7. Systematize vertebrate eradication processes and verification methods for early detection alerts on islands for reference to other areas and projects. These references are especially important for CONANP in the application of EDRR systems, as it is not viable for GECI to travel to each island upon early detection alerts. CONANP must consolidate the capacity to verify the presence of IAS upon early detection alerts and carry out at least basic control and contention work as indicated in rapid response protocols. |
| 8 | Midterm Review recommendation 8. Take the lead in applying biosecurity protocols for insular NPA, supported by the CONANP Department for Priority Species for Conservation (DEPC), General Directorate for Regional Operation (DGOR) and Regional Departments for NPA so that GECI takes a supporting role, inverting current roles. As GECI is an NGO, it can provide technical support, but does not have the legal mandate to enforce the necessary actions except for voluntary cooperation by the public. In this case, a government institution must take the lead in ensuring that the biosecurity protocols are effective. Besides, the presence of GECI on islands depends on projects, being occasional, while the presence of CONANP is sustained. |
| 9 | Midterm Review recommendation 9. To promote simulations of EDRR systems developed for NPA (response chains) in order to test their efficacy and as a way to build capacity for NPA personnel. Once the effectiveness has been evaluated, the protocols should be disseminated for replication in other NPA |
| 10 | Midterm Review recommendation 10. Not perform experiments in the control of invasive plants without a technical basis. It is desirable to nominate one person to be in charge of IAS control in NPA, as well as one focal point in the Coordination for IAS in Central CONANP, who receive specific training to provide qualified technical support to ongoing control work. The best methods available must be applied, making use of existing experience and technical and scientific knowledge, in order to increase the chances of consolidating efficient control methods before project closure. Urgently implement new invasive plant control measures to consolidate replicable methods. Use chemical control for alien invasive grasses and estimate costs and efficacy in comparison with mechanical control. Make use of the expertise available in the Scientific Committee to support these actions and pursue capacity building alternatives outside Mexico if necessary, as there seems not to be much experience on integrated management of invasive plants in natural areas in the country. |
| 11 | Midterm Review recommendation 12. Ensure the extension of the project deadline to the end of 2019 in order to allow enough time for practical implementation of all the information produced through the project as well as for mainstreaming IAS management commitments in the new government. |
| 12 | Midterm Review recommendation 13. Support the PMU in project management on the constant changes in administrative processes that may cause implementation delays. Carry out an assessment of processes that cause delays in project implementation, especially the approval of consultancy reports and other products. Seek ways to improve the initial quality of reports by providing consultants with a proposed structure and minimum contents to facilitate approval. This is important to optimize product reviews and, especially, to make sure that payments are completed in due time to allow field activities to be carried out as necessary. |
| 13 | Midterm Review recommendation 14. Strengthen the PMU with more personnel in this final implementation phase to ensure that all outcomes are achieved, especially due to the current changes in administrative processes of the UNDP. |
| 14 | Midterm Review recommendation 15. Systematize information on progress, achievements and limitations of the project for use in project management and especially for the Terminal Evaluation. Use the indicator and output tables updated for the MTR (Tables 2 and 8 – Strategic Results Framework, Table 3 – Indicators per output, Table 4 - progress per output and the Management Effectiveness / Institutional Capacity Tracking Tools), to monitor project implementation. The MTR Team does not recommend reviewing the indicators at this point in implementation because many would require revision, diverting efforts that must now be focused on the consolidation of activities and best practices. Include reports and products from complementary sources, such as PROCER reports on plant control in NPA, on the web page, organized by topic and by NPA. |
| 15 | Midterm Review recommendation 17. Mainstream IAS prevention and control into sectorial regulations of productive systems (aquaculture, forage grasses, forest products and others) and develop regulations for unregulated sectors (pets, ornamental plants and others) in order to reduce IAS escape and impacts of these sectors on biodiversity and ecosystem services. |
1. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 1. Update the National List in coordination with government agencies in charge of the missing species.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: PMU will raise the issue of including the missing species the official list during committees meeting with partners in charge for the list and try to reach an agreement.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.2 Raise the subject of the actual official list during High-level committee and try to reach an agreement.
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU | 2019/03 | Not Initiated | Depends of political will of the responsible partner institutions |
2. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 2. Consolidate risk assessment protocols in user-friendly systems (e.g. Excel) and adjust the rapid assessment protocol (MERI), providing validation tests to ensure there is no bias. Pursue options to formalize the use of risk assessment by agencies in charge of authorizing species imports for different uses in order to establish an impartial and consistent risk assessment process that includes biodiversity concerns. Pursue the inclusion of biodiversity criteria in risk assessment protocols used by SENASICA.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: CONABIO will pursue and oversee validation process of MERI and PMU will raise the issue during committees meeting with responsible partner institutions.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.1 Convert risk assessment protocols into excel version and put it on the internet page.
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONABIO | 2019/11 | Not Initiated | Para la herramienta de análisis de riesgo de plantas adaptada para México, la UAM y la UNAM van a desarrollar un Excel con los algoritmos para hacer la evaluación. En el caso del MERI, este estará disponible a través de un formato y calculadora en línea mediante el SNIEI de la CONABIO | |
| 2.2 Validation of MERI for fishes by experts
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONABIO | 2019/02 | Not Initiated | Takes place either during national congress on ichthyology or in an independent meeting afterwards | |
| 2.3 Validation of MERI for plants with experts UAM
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
Jordan Golubov, UAM & CONABIO | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | UAM is working on Weed Risk Assessment (WRA), results will be used for validation. MOU between UAM and CONABIO is pending | |
| 2.4 Regarding the use of risk assessment for authorizing species imports, more species have to be included in the process through bilateral meetings with SEMARNAT and SENASICA and probably raise the issue again during committee meetings (High level and Technical)
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU & CONABIO, SEMARNAT, SENASICA | 2019/03 | Not Initiated | All importation are done either using prerequisite formats or Risk Assessments | |
| 2.7 Raise the issue of Inclusion of biodiversity criteria in risk assessment protocols in d committee meetings
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU, Committees | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | Due to the change of government, not likely to be achieved |
3. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 3. Strengthen the sectors within SEMARNAT in charge of IAS in order to: a) improve IAS management, b) optimize authorization processes for eradication and control actions and to establish an expedited process for rapid response actions in EDRR systems in coordination with CONANP and c) ensure resources are available for the implementation of the National Strategy on Invasive Species. SEMARNAT personnel responsible for IAS management might require specific training to allow for pro-active institutional coordination with CONABIO, CONANP and other government agencies in complementary sectors in charge of species introductions or sectors that function as pathways and vectors of IAS introduction and spread.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: As soon as the new government is in place, PMU will arrange for meetings and bring up the issue during high-level committee meetings.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.1 (a & b1) Meeting between CONANP and SEMARNAT to discuss IAS management and authorization process
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
SEMARNAT & CONANP PMU | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | a) Meeting between CONANP & SEMARNAT took already place, process is improved. b) Due to the change of government, can only be tried with the new government | |
| 3.1 (b2) Raise the topic of resources during committee meetings (High level and Technical)
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU and meeting participants | 2019/03 | Not Initiated | Two more meetings planned in 2018 and 4 in 2019 to follow up the item | |
| 3.2 Invite more SEMARNAT personnel to the next online training
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONABIO | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | Personal will be invited to the online training |
4. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 4. Replicate biosecurity protocols developed for ornamental fishes to other species in aquaculture, pursuing a public policy to support producers in the implementation of biosecurity measures. Considering that aquaculture represents an expanding market, many new introductions of fishes, biological invasions and impacts due to the escape of alien fishes from breeding stations can be avoided.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Topic will be raised in different meetings and events to reach out to the aquaculture industry and create awareness.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.1 Raise the topic during committee meetings (High level and Technical)
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU and meeting participants | 2019/03 | Not Initiated | Two more meetings planned in 2018 and 4 in 2019 | |
| 4.2 Raise the topic during sector meetings and industry events as well as publications
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONAPESCA, INAPESCA & SENASICA, CESAEM PMU, INAPESCA | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | Topic is continuously addressed by including it in presentations during events for example in Acuarismo UNAM y FIACUI 2018 and will be raised with new government. Article about certification schemes published in a 44-4 de Aquaculture Magazine published |
5. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 5. Strengthen the Central CONANP Coordination for Invasive Alien Species by assigning more personnel or allowing the Coordination to be exclusively dedicated to IAS management. This will improve management efficiency and increase support to NPA in order to ensure that all pending actions in the project are implemented in due time, as well as for future replication to other NPA. A higher level of involvement by the Director for the Conservation of Priority Species is desirable, as this position is levelled with NPA Directors. This is especially relevant for decision-making in key moments to ensure implementation of prevention measures, EDRR and control of IAS.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: During this administration, CONANP will not be able to higher more personnel; PMU will start talks with the new commissioner of CONANP.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.1 Raise the topic during High level committee meetings and raise the issue during bilateral meetings with commissioner and new Director for Conservation of Priority Species
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU & CONANP | 2019/06 | Not Initiated | Due to the change of government, can only be tried with the new government |
6. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 6. Control five invasive plant species in PN Arrecife Alacranes (planned for year 1) with support and permits issued by CONANP for mechanical and chemical control as needed and based on technical reference for each species and/or experts in invasive plant control. Conclude goat eradication on Espíritu Santo Island using the most viable methods and considering the cost-benefit ratio. Eradication must proceed based on hunting and complementary methods to ensure success. CONANP must support the work and provide the necessary permits for eradication to be achieved in a few months, as planned, to prevent the goat population from increasing, as well as the costs involved.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: GECI will collaborate with CONAFOR to facilitate plant eradication and change tools for goat eradication. Necessary permits from CONANP see point 3.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.1 Control invasive plant species
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Recently met with CONAFOR, which mentioned they have the capacities to respond to plant invasions; we are pursuing this possibility. | |
| 6.2 Conclude goat eradication
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | GECI is looking into using CO2 air guns, instead of fire guns as an alternative, so that CONANP will feel comfortable allowing it. Once this challenge is overcome, we estimate the eradication could be finished within 6-8 months. |
7. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 7. Systematize vertebrate eradication processes and verification methods for early detection alerts on islands for reference to other areas and projects. These references are especially important for CONANP in the application of EDRR systems, as it is not viable for GECI to travel to each island upon early detection alerts. CONANP must consolidate the capacity to verify the presence of IAS upon early detection alerts and carry out at least basic control and contention work as indicated in rapid response protocols.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: GECI will generate the necessary documents and articles as well as continue to invite CONANP to their workshops on the topic.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7.1 Create necessary documentation on EDRR and make it available to CONANP
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
GECI | 2019/03 | Not Initiated | GECI is working on simple yet comprehensive documents to be published for CONANP and other stakeholders on EDRR methods. | |
| 7.2 Generate articles on EDRR to be published in relevant journals
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | GECI has a few publications on the process of being accepted both on the topic of biosecurity and advances on island restoration. |
8. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 8. Take the lead in applying biosecurity protocols for insular NPA, supported by the CONANP Department for Priority Species for Conservation (DEPC), General Directorate for Regional Operation (DGOR) and Regional Departments for NPA so that GECI takes a supporting role, inverting current roles. As GECI is an NGO, it can provide technical support, but does not have the legal mandate to enforce the necessary actions except for voluntary cooperation by the public. In this case, a government institution must take the lead in ensuring that the biosecurity protocols are effective. Besides, the presence of GECI on islands depends on projects, being occasional, while the presence of CONANP is sustained.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Reunions with partners
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.1 Meeting with technical personnel of the 6 NPA and key actors (staff of public institutions, civil organizations and service providers) for training in island biosecurity strategies. 28 people approximately.
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONANP, GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | ||
| 8.2 Define the structure of work among the institutions involved, to encourage the development of biosecurity protocols in other insular NPA.
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONANP, GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated |
9. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 9. To promote simulations of EDRR systems developed for NPA (response chains) in order to test their efficacy and as a way to build capacity for NPA personnel. Once the effectiveness has been evaluated, the protocols should be disseminated for replication in other NPA
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Follow up activities are planned for Cañon de Sumidero National Park and EDRR topic included in TdR to be published.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.1 EDRR activities included in TdR and EDRR exercises planned in different NPA
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
ONANP | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Next TdR´s include EDRR in different NPA |
10. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 10. Not perform experiments in the control of invasive plants without a technical basis. It is desirable to nominate one person to be in charge of IAS control in NPA, as well as one focal point in the Coordination for IAS in Central CONANP, who receive specific training to provide qualified technical support to ongoing control work. The best methods available must be applied, making use of existing experience and technical and scientific knowledge, in order to increase the chances of consolidating efficient control methods before project closure. Urgently implement new invasive plant control measures to consolidate replicable methods. Use chemical control for alien invasive grasses and estimate costs and efficacy in comparison with mechanical control. Make use of the expertise available in the Scientific Committee to support these actions and pursue capacity building alternatives outside Mexico if necessary, as there seems not to be much experience on integrated management of invasive plants in natural areas in the country.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Training von control of invasive plants will be provided and follow up of ongoing control activities is planned.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10.1 Organize training on plant control and make sure responsible person participate in training
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONANP | 2019/02 | Not Initiated | TdR are published and proposals in review. | |
| 10.2 Implement and supervise chemical control measures
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
Personnel NP Cumbres de Monterrey & headquarters, CONANP &PMU | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Site visit by CONANP and PMU a Cumbres took place in August 2018 |
11. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 12. Ensure the extension of the project deadline to the end of 2019 in order to allow enough time for practical implementation of all the information produced through the project as well as for mainstreaming IAS management commitments in the new government.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Extension requested by PMU.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 12.1 Petition made to UNDP
Petition made to GEF
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
CONABIO UNDP | 2018/12 | Completed |
12. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 13. Support the PMU in project management on the constant changes in administrative processes that may cause implementation delays. Carry out an assessment of processes that cause delays in project implementation, especially the approval of consultancy reports and other products. Seek ways to improve the initial quality of reports by providing consultants with a proposed structure and minimum contents to facilitate approval. This is important to optimize product reviews and, especially, to make sure that payments are completed in due time to allow field activities to be carried out as necessary.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: This has been done in the past and is done continously
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13.1 Manuel is continuously updated to ensure performance improvement and kick off meetings are held before the consultants start to work
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Ongoing activities | |
| 13.2 Changing and automating of processes
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
UNDP | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Ongoing activity |
13. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 14. Strengthen the PMU with more personnel in this final implementation phase to ensure that all outcomes are achieved, especially due to the current changes in administrative processes of the UNDP.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Due to limitations on personal by UNDP and due to missing budget in CONABIO this will not be possible.
Key Actions:
14. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 15. Systematize information on progress, achievements and limitations of the project for use in project management and especially for the Terminal Evaluation. Use the indicator and output tables updated for the MTR (Tables 2 and 8 – Strategic Results Framework, Table 3 – Indicators per output, Table 4 - progress per output and the Management Effectiveness / Institutional Capacity Tracking Tools), to monitor project implementation. The MTR Team does not recommend reviewing the indicators at this point in implementation because many would require revision, diverting efforts that must now be focused on the consolidation of activities and best practices. Include reports and products from complementary sources, such as PROCER reports on plant control in NPA, on the web page, organized by topic and by NPA.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: Additional information on activities conducted with co-financing will be included, available information will linked with the project page and proposed tables will be used. Most of the indicators remain unchanged.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15.1 Recommended tables are in use since evaluation
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU, CONANP, GECI | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Continuous effort until the end of the project | |
| 15.2 Links between web page of CONABIO and the project are established and brief summaries for activities have been generated
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU & CONABIO PROFEP & CONAFOR | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | Continuous effort until the end of the project |
15. Recommendation:
Midterm Review recommendation 17. Mainstream IAS prevention and control into sectorial regulations of productive systems (aquaculture, forage grasses, forest products and others) and develop regulations for unregulated sectors (pets, ornamental plants and others) in order to reduce IAS escape and impacts of these sectors on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Management Response: [Added: 2019/01/14]
Management response: PMU seeks continuously meetings with the different productive sectors and try to achieve better management through conditions linked to financing.
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 17.1 Pursue collaboration of FIRA regarding promotion of certification scheme, development of financial instruments and capacity building.
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
SEMARNAT, SAGARPA, CONANP, CONAPESCA | 2019/12 | Not Initiated | First meeting with representative of FIRA was held 09.08.2018 FIRA send an email 26.10.2018 that they are inclined to consider it from 2019 on | |
| 17.2 topic will be raised during High-level and technical Committee meetings
[Added: 2019/01/14] |
PMU & High-Level / Technical Committees | 2019/12 | Not Initiated |